Le destin n'est pas inéluctable : évaluation des effets probables du libre-échange nord-américain sur la politique étrangère du Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article with minor revisions, was originally presented as a paper at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in Victoria, B.C., May 27, 1990. Since then, Canada has been accused of simply following Washington's lead in sending troops to the Gulfand in seeking to join United States-Mexico free trade negotiations. These developments do not alter the paper's challenging conclusion : namely, that the current bilateral free-trade regime neither obliges nor justifies a subordinate Canadian foreign policy — however much the terms of the Free Trade Agreement may impinge on the international dimensions of some Canadian policies (e.g., on energy and investment), and notwithstanding the potential momentum (but uncertain prospects) of North American integration. Free trade, in fact seems to have increased, not reduced, the salience of the national question in Canada. As well, the Gulf crisis is a test more of United Nations resolve than bilateral solidarity. And on the trade front, Canada has been reminded of the extent to which it remains on its own. U.S. negotiators were angered by Canada's middle-ground position on agricultural subsidies - the issue over which GATT talks collapsed, increasing Canadian vulnerability. Moreover, Canadian participation in U.S.Mexico trade negotiations has been privately less welcome than the official public rhetoric suggests. More than ever perhaps, Canadian national interests depend on strong international diplomacy mode no less necessary, if arguably encumbered, by the evolving context of continental free trade.
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 | 0.012 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".