MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2788647090 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v11i1.43136

Canada and Associate Membership in the Pacific Alliance: An Important Part of a Global Trade Strategy

2018· article· en· W2788647090 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Hugh Stephens, Juan Salvador Navarro

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueGlobal trade and economics
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAllianceInternational tradeBusinessEconomic geographyGeographyArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

There has been considerable coverage lately of Canada’s ongoing efforts to secure preferential access to overseas markets in Asia, while trying to save NAFTA and promote its “progressive” trade agenda. The “progressive” trade agenda hit a few recent road bumps, first in Vietnam in November when a planned announcement of an “agreement in principle” on the “TPP 11 Agreement” was postponed at the last minute, and in December in Beijing when Chinese authorities balked at including additional “progressive” chapters in a free trade agreement, the negotiation of which many expected would be announced during Mr. Trudeau’s visit. Although a breakthrough on the TPP11, now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, was announced on January 23, NAFTA negotiations continue to be difficult. One area that has been overlooked in all the coverage of recent events, and which holds potential for advancing Canadian trade interests in both Latin America and the Asia Pacific, is the Pacific Alliance and Canada’s pursuit of associate member status. The PA trade pact, comprising Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, is currently in the process of discussing with several countries, including Canada, the possibility of becoming “associate members.” Associate member status is novel, thus it is not clear what precisely it will entail or when it will come into effect. However, the possibility of Canada moving from its current "observer" status to becoming a more active part of the PA (or possibly an expanded version of the Alliance), offers significant benefit for Canada. For all the focus on the TPP and the NAFTA renegotiations, not to mention Canada’s recently concluded economic partnership agreement with the EU and potential free-trade negotiations with China, very little attention has been paid in Canada to the developments with the PA. And yet, this is one trade bloc that holds some of the greatest promise for Canada. All four founding countries are historic allies of Canada with likeminded systems of values of trade openness. Canada already enjoys strong bilateral relations with each of the PA members, but a multilateral agreement could offer Canada far more in terms of market integration. The PA also happens to offer Canadian exporters a very attractive market, with a population of 219 million, a very young average age (29.8 years) and a GDP per capita, at US$17,500, higher than that of China’s US$14,600. The PA nations are all also ranked among the most hospitable places to do business in South America. Meanwhile, as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) involving 16 Asia Pacific nations moves closer to reality, there are suggestions that it could someday merge with the PA, possibly opening the door for Canada to yet more opportunity comprising half the world’s population and 40 per cent of its GDP. First Canada has to make the most of its opportunity to become an associate member of the PA. With the NAFTA negotiation crisis occupying so much bandwidth in Ottawa, there is a risk that the PA opportunity might not get the attention it deserves. Canadians should hope that it does. Because if NAFTA ends up failing, the PA could provide some of the new trade opportunities Canada will desperately need.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,086
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,417

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0190,008
Communication savante0,0170,008
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0210,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,101
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,173 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsMême sujetGlobal trade and economicsTravaux en français237 207