Recognizing a Sustainable Relationship between International Human Rights and International Trade Law in a Pursuit to have Human Rights Taken More Seriously: A Case Study of the Peopleâs Republic of China and the WTO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acknowledging a relationship between international human rights and international trade law adds to the legitimacy of economic, social and cultural rights already enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the central institution for international trade law and it has demonstrated a commitment to enhance human rights. This commitment has been realized through WTO efforts to enhance human dignity and eradicate poverty. These WTO efforts ought to be fostered and used to promote human rights. \n\nThe purpose of this study was two fold – first, demonstrate that a relationship between international trade law and international human rights exists; and second, that this relationship is useful in promoting economic, social and cultural rights. This relationship will be examined through WTO initiatives, case studies and the Accession of the Republic of China in 2001.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".