Is ‘NAFTA Plus’ an Option in the North American Agrifood Sector?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) nearly complete, there are concerns that the easy gains in efficiency have been achieved and that additional steps towards the economic integration of the member countries are required. This poses a distinct challenge to the NAFTA governments, since the agreement did not create trinational institutions with the supranational authority to facilitate the deepening of the new trading environment. In any initiative to further the economic integration of the NAFTA countries, agriculture will be a difficult sector in which to make progress. However, at an aggregate level, the support provided directly to agricultural producers by the NAFTA governments is similar, as are tariffs at an aggregate level. All three countries have devised income support programmes that contain a countercyclical element. In each of these areas, as well as in the operation of ‘green box’ programmes that are consistent with the member countries’ obligations to the World Trade Organization, cooperation and consultation among the NAFTA members would seem crucial if they are to achieve greater integration in the agrifood sector. This article examines the opportunities and challenges facing the NAFTA members as they seek further integration in the agrifood sector.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".