North American Free Trade Agreement and Transportation: A Canadian Scorecard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Canadian perspective is presented on the successes and failures of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as related to the transportation sector. For the agreement, 2001 is a watershed year when most of the agreement provisions should be in place. Canada’s intentions at the negotiating table and its stake in trilateral trade are discussed. Changes promised by NAFTA in the transportation business environment are examined. The impacts of NAFTA on nontariff barriers are detailed, including operating and safety standards, access to cargo ("cabotage"), ownership regulations, and investment screening. This analysis is a sequel to a presentation made at the 1994 TRB Annual Meeting and subsequently published in Transport Reviews. That paper concluded that NAFTA offered greater opportunity to American transport firms with the financial and managerial strength to exploit the agreement’s potential, and received mixed reviews in Canada. Seven years have passed since NAFTA implementation; this analysis looks at the promise that was NAFTA and produces a scorecard from a Canadian point of view. The grade is not good.
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 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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; 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".