MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Subsidizing the Microchip Race: The Expanding Use of National Security Arguments in International Trade

2024· article· en· W4400104599 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Michigan Journal of Law Reform · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeDiscretionState (computer science)LawSubsidyEconomicsPolitical scienceInternational trade law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2018, China, India, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, and Turkey lodged complaints with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in the case of Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products. Each State alleged that the United States had violated international trade law by imposing a series of aggressive tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. President Donald Trump’s administration responded to these allegations by claiming that its actions were permissible under Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); a long-standing exception built into the international trade law framework that allows States to restrict trade when doing so is vital to their national security. According to the United States, Article XXI granted it and other States near-total discretion when it came to defining their own security interests. The DSB Panel rejected this argument. Instead, the Panel asserted its own power to determine whether a State could claim the protection of Article XXI. When it came to American tariffs on imported metals, the Panel found that Article XXI was not appropriately implicated.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Michigan Journal of Law ReformSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207