Regulatory Transparency, Developing Countries, and the WTO', World Trade Review 2 (2) Wolfe, Robert. (forthcoming) 'Where’s the Beef? Law, Institutions and the Canada-U.S. Border
Bibliographic record
Abstract
using funds provided by the Law Commission of Canada. The fate of the World Trade Organization (WTO) hinges on its ability to reconcile two contrasting political imperatives. The WTO must adapt to rapid globalization with the demands that places on the most sophisticated sectors of the advanced economies, and it must integrate developing countries into the trading system. We can see this tension in discussions of one of the central norms of the regime, transparency. Many conceptions of the rule of law as administrative law (often called “good governance”) stress the importance of regulatory autonomy and transparency. This norm is based on the principled belief that democratic governance and efficient markets are enhanced when participants know what is going on, and when administrative agencies have a degree of autonomy. These ideas are now central to the politics of the WTO in three ways. The first is external transparency, meaning how well citizens in general and civil society organizations can see into the work of the organization, and the second is internal transparency, meaning the ability of smaller and developing country members to participate in the organization. In these two modes, debates are about actor identity and capacity:
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".