MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035969675 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2012.705864

Canada–Mexico Relations: Interdependence, Shared Values … and the Limits of Cooperation

2012· article· en· W2035969675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arturo Santa Cruz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriod (music)NegotiationVisionSection (typography)PoliticsConvergence (economics)Political scienceRelation (database)EconomyPolitical economyEconomic historySociologyLawHistoryEconomic growthEconomicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers a historical overview of the evolution of the relationship between Canada and Mexico, emphasizing its exiguity, its fundamental economic nature and the consequences of sharing borders with the United States. It is organized as follows: the first section covers the period going from the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1944 to the late 1960s, a period during which the bilateral relation failed to consolidate despite sporadic efforts; the second section deals with the period starting with the convergence of political visions in the two capitals in the early 1970s up to the period immediately preceding the starting of the negotiations leading to NAFTA. The period during which the most significant engagement between the two countries has taken place to the present is reviewed in the third section. The article concludes presenting some thoughts on the possibilities and limits of cooperation between the two countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0140.021
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207