Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formation of the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) among the three countries - the U.S., Canada and Mexico is the most striking example of successful development of integration processes in the Western Hemisphere. This year NAFTA marks the 20th anniversary of its foundation (1994). NAFTA covers trade in goods, services and movement of capital, intellectual property rights, environmental cooperation and labor cooperation. Its main advantages for member countries related to the dynamic growth of regional trade and investments, promoting the growth of industrial production (capital-intensive and high-tech industries in the U.S. and Canada, and labor-intensive industries in Mexico), increase the investment attractiveness of the economies of member countries and the promotion of employment. But there are costs, both general and specific to the individual member countries. Common costs are primarily asymmetrical level of economic interdependence, where mutual economic relations are the most developed between the U.S. and Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and the least developed between Mexico and Canada due to historical conditions. Other costs are the differentiation in the levels of economic development, in volumes of overall GDP and per capita, population and size of the territory. But despite the costs, integration processes are successfully developed and repeatedly raised the issue of deepening economic integration between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. So, in 2000, there was put forward the concept of creating the North American community as an economic and security community by 2010, and in 2005 proposed the idea of a common currency called the Amero. But these proposals did not come true. On the agenda - the possibility of signing a new, more expanded NAFTA+, and even in the last year - the possibility to form a customs union under NAFTA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads 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".