Correcting the democratic deficit in the CETA negotiations: Civil society engagement in the provinces, municipalities, and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The federal government claims that the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) negotiations have been the most transparent and participatory in Canadian history. Labour, environmental, social justice, and other civil society groups that are critical of the proposed agreement for various reasons would argue that their perspectives have been excluded from the official federal dialogue. This article looks at some of the efforts of non-governmental (civil society) actors, and in particular the Trade Justice Network and its member organizations, to affect the CETA negotiations in other ways, with an emphasis on contact with provincial governments, municipalities, European decision makers, and other non-governmental groups in Canada and Europe. It is argued that the exclusion of critical views shows an inherent democratic deficit in the CETA negotiations that privileges corporate insiders at the expense of civil society, the public, and even elected officials. Notwithstanding this deficit, the success of the civil society campaigns can be seen in the problem areas delaying a successful conclusion of negotiations, including new public procurement restrictions for Canadian municipalities and pharmaceutical patent term extensions. For the Trade Justice Network, these areas also help explain how the agreement narrows the fields of economic, environmental, and social governance in Canada.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".