MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039409098 · doi:10.1080/01900690008525507

Negotiating chile's entry to nafta: trade and investment issues

2000· article· en· W2039409098 on OpenAlex
Terry Wu, Neil Longley

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Public Administration · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitNegotiationInternational tradeFree trade agreementAccessionInvestment (military)Intellectual propertyFree tradePolitical scienceTrade agreementSettlement (finance)Foreign direct investmentEconomicsInternational economicsLawPoliticsGeographyEuropean unionFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In December 1994, the United States, Canada, and Mexico agreed in principle to extend the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to Chile at the Summit of the Americas. This paper examines Chile's accession to NAFTA with special reference to key issues in the negotiations. It discusses the rationale for extending NAFTA to Chile from the U.S. and Chilean perspectives. The study also examines how NAFTA negotiators may address issues such as trade and investment rules, technical standards, dispute settlement obligations, intellectual property rights, phase-in periods, and labor and environmental standards.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.308 · 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