Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October 2013, Canada and the EU announced the conclusion, in principle, of a comprehensive economic trade agreement (CETA). Canada's prime minister described the agreement as historic, “the biggest deal our country has ever made,” and assured Canadians there would be major economic benefits. Not all Canadians share the prime minister's confidence. Concerns about job loss, affordable health care, farm production, and national sovereignty are central to criticism of the agreement. Why has this free trade agreement, and others before it, elicited a polarized reaction, with the champions and opponents of free trade squaring off against one another? Using the history of global trade and Canadian trade policy since 1945 as a guide, this essay examines the motivations, concerns, assumptions, and meanings that animate debates over free trade in Canada. Faith and fear are central to the way people understand and respond to free trade. This essay also explains how domestic and international factors and interests have shaped free trade since 1945, and how it blends economic, political, and geopolitical considerations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".