The Legitimacy of International Trade Courts and Tribunals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part I. International Trade Courts and Tribunals: 1. Introduction Robert Howse, Geir Ulfstein, Helene Ruiz-Fabri and Michelle Zang; 2. The WTO adjudicating bodies Gabrielle Marcea and Reto Marco Malacrida; 3. The court of justice of the European Union Pieter-Jan Kuijper; 4. The EFTA Court Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen; 5. The United States court of justice Donald C. Pogue; 6. The Federal Courts of Canada Maureen Irish; 7. The case of MERCOSURl Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida; 8. The Andean Court of Justice Miguel Antonio Villamizar; 9. The case of the economic court of the ISIS Rilka Dragneva; 10. The COMESA Court of Justice James Thuo Gathii; 11. The WAEMA Court of Justice Illy Ousseni; 12. The ASEAN Trade Dispute Settlement Mechanism Michael Ewing-Chow and Ranyta Yusran; Part II. Cross Cutting Studies: 13. A comparative analysis of formal independence Theresa Squatrito; 14. Judicial interaction of international trade courts and tribunals Michelle Zang; 15. Access to trade tribunals - comparative perspectives Ole-Kristian Fauchald; 16. Towards a more just WTO: which justice, whose interpretation? Andreas Follesdal; Conclusions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it