Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review of scientific evidence by World Trade Organization (WTO) panels in disputes under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) has been a frequent subject of scholarly literature. Despite the deferential standard of review established by the Appellate Body back in EC – Hormones and US/Canada – Continued Suspension, panels tend to put WTO member’s risk assessments to close scrutiny sometimes resembling a de novo review, which invariably leads to findings of violation. The transposition of the same standard into the TBT Agreement, however, has produced markedly different outcomes and secured a win for the respondents on essential issues in the most recent disputes over Australia’s tobacco plain packaging (TPP) regulation and the EU’s biofuels regime. This essay identifies the differences in the approaches adopted by SPS and TBT panels in the evaluation of scientific evidence and contemplates on the potential causes for such differences.
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 | 0.234 | 0.343 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".