MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396742864 · doi:10.46271/kjiel.2024.3.22.1.83

Analysis of the Trade Remedy Chapter in the CPTPP and the USMCA

2024· article· en· W4396742864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kyoung-jin Park

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of International Economic Law · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

본고는 미국이 협상에 주도적으로 참여한 최신 자유무역협정(Free Trade Agreement)인 『포괄적·점진적 환태평양경제동반자협정(Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership)』와 『미국·멕시코·캐나다협정(United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement)』에 포함되어 있는 무역구제 챕터의 특징을 정리하고, 이를 비교·분석해보고자 한다. 일반적으로 FTA 무역구제 챕터는 참여국간 무역구제조치를 보다 적게 활용하도록 하기 위해, 그 적용을 보다 까다롭게 만드는 역할을 하고 있다. CPTPP와 USMCA상의 무역구제 챕터에서도 이러한 특징이 도출되는데, 특히 절차적 이슈의 투명성을 강조하고 있는 CPTPP에서 나아가, USMCA는 모든 이해당사자의 의미있는 참여기회를 추가하고 있다는 점, 독립된 분쟁해결기구에서 각국의 반덤핑관세 부과 최종결정을 검토할 수 있도록 하고 있다는 점에서 무역구제 조치의 남용 가능성을 줄일 수 있는 방안을 제도화하고 있다. 하지만 이와 동시에 전통적으로 사후적, 방어적 접근을 취하던 무역구제 조치에서 변화하여, 반덤핑관세 및 상계관세 회피 검증 시스템 도입, 직권조사의 강조 등 당사국들이 무역구제조치를 보다 적극적·공격적으로 활용하게 만들어 비당사국에게 차별적 위험을 높이는 일종의 무기화(weaponization) 가능성도 함께 가지고 있다는 점에도 유의해야 할 것이다.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKorean Journal of International Economic LawSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207