MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059028278 · doi:10.3152/147154606781765048

NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation: ongoing assessment of trade liberalization in North America

2006· article· en· W2059028278 on OpenAlexaff
Chantal Line Carpentier

Bibliographic record

VenueImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsEspace pour la vie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateCommissionFree tradeLiberalizationEnvironmental qualityEnvironmental policyProcess (computing)International tradePoliticsEnvironmental impact assessmentPolitical scienceEconomicsBusinessEnvironmental resource managementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) has a mandate to monitor the environmental effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This paper describes the CEC process in developing an analytic framework for assessing these effects. It gives an overview of conclusions drawn from more than 50 studies conducted so far, and comments on lessons learned in terms of methodology and data, environmental quality, and environmental policy results. The conclusions highlight the major lesson: environmental effects have been neither very bad nor very good and are policy dependent. After 11 years, the foundations for mutually supportive trade, environment, and economic policies have been laid; the outcome will depend on political will within the NAFTA area.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207