Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current agricultural trade negotiations under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO) call for an elimination of export subsidies. But the current language on export subsidies in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture omits an important implicit export subsidy in the form of price discrimination with or without revenue pooling. In either case, the export subsidy can be called ‘consumer only financed’. Two recent high profile trade disputes brought before the WTO concluded that price discrimination with or without price pooling constituted an export subsidy (WTO, 1999, 2004). As a result, both Canadian dairy and EU sugar export subsidies were deemed to be above that scheduled in the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA). The WTO rulings based their decision on cross-subsidization as defined by Tangermann (1997) where price support within quotas has the effect of covering fixed costs while above-quota production can be sold even if the price received for it covers only marginal cost of production. Tangermann (1997) also includes the export subsidy effect of revenue pooling in his definition of cross-subsidization. In this paper, we develop a general theoretical framework that identifies the elements of export subsidies with or without revenue pooling. In cases were there is no revenue pooling, we
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".