MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073856384 · doi:10.1108/10569210680000219

The impact of NAFTA on the Mexican‐American trade

2006· article· en· W2073856384 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mihai Nica, Ziad Swaidan, Michael M. Grayson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Commerce and Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFree trade agreementOrder (exchange)International tradeGovernment (linguistics)International economicsEconomicsBalance of tradePoint (geometry)PoliticsFree tradeBalance (ability)Political scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on the trade between Mexico and the U.S. NAFTA was signed by the U.S., Canada and Mexico on 17 December 1992 and took effect on 1 January 1994. This research found that NAFTA led to a significant increase in U.S. imports from Mexico, did not affect U.S. exports to Mexico, and led to a negative U.S. trade balance in the short term with Mexico. From a policy point of view, the results suggest that further expansion of NAFTA will probably lead to even larger trade deficits, at least in the short term, for the U.S. In order to prepare for the political and economic implications of NAFTA and FTAA the U.S. needs to encourage further research that leads to a quantification of the short‐term benefits and losses, even if most economists, business leaders, and government officials agree that in the long term the countries and populations involved will all benefit.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Commerce and ManagementSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207