MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409893072 · doi:10.1007/s10784-025-09672-2

Regulatory momentum for an energy subsidies agreement in the wake of the fisheries subsidies agreement

2025· article· en· W4409893072 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine Gascoigne

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Environmental Agreements Politics Law and Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMacquarie University
KeywordsSubsidyNature ConservationWakeMomentum (technical analysis)AgreementFisheryBusinessEconomicsPhysicsEcologyFinanceMarket economyMechanicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Environmental Agreements Politics Law and EconomicsSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207