Regulatory momentum for an energy subsidies agreement in the wake of the fisheries subsidies agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The recent conclusion of the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO) offers renewed hope and momentum for the possibility of concluding a similar sector-specific agreement concerning energy subsidies. Such a sector-specific agreement is critical in view of: (1) the lack of policy space currently available to WTO Members to carry out renewable energy projects; (2) perverse incentives that currently exist under the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement to litigate renewable energy subsidies in preference to fossil fuel subsidies; and (3) the lack of a clear plan at the international level to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The need for more policy space in order to promote renewable energy projects became clear in the panel and Appellate Body decisions in the Canada—Renewable Energy/Canada—Feed-in Tariff Program case in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Since then, there have been several proposals for law reform. This article will consider the advantages and disadvantages of each of these proposals before turning to consider why a sector-specific agreement to regulate energy subsidies under the auspices of the WTO would be the best solution.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".