Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Doha round has been stalling for over 10 years now. It might not be ‘dead and loving it’ but definitely in moribund condition. Worse, there is no sign of reviving it, in the near future at least. The most optimistic scenario involves a re-engineering of the round after the US Presidential elections. There are so many uncertainties involved though that few, if any, would bet their money on it. More worrisome is probably the fact that major trading partners are looking into deals that would eviscerate even further the non-discrimination principle, the cornerstone of the WTO. Preferential trade agreements are multiplying at alarming speed: Obama was celebrating in Hawaii the Pacific deal two weeks before the Doha round was pronounced dead yet again last December; the EU has concluded a deal with Korea, is about to do so with Canada and India, and is also contemplating (or, at least has not rejected the idea) a deal with its transatlantic partner. And then, the plurilaterals: conceived as a means to break a deadlock caused by the single undertaking-approach, they could become the means to transform the WTO into an integration process with variable geometry. The talk of a services plurilateral is picking up speed and caused friction already in some quarters. With all this in mind, the High Level Policy Seminar “Trade Roundtable” (12 March 2012), organized within the Research Strand “International Trade” of the Global Governance Programme (GGP), aimed to address the possible ways, if any, to keep the Round alive. The memoranda presented during the seminar by the academics (featured in this publication) as well as the responses by the policy makers left us with little room for optimism. The WTO needs a reality check soon. And it will be painful, for it is not just the current round that is at stake, but its future relevance as well. Preferential trade agreements seem to run away with the trade agenda while the WTO is catching up its breath.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.510 | 0.392 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".