Bibliographic record
Abstract
By the beginning of year 2006, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, FTAA, will be launched. Mixed expectations and concerns about its effects on the individual economieshave grown in the area since this process started in December, 1994. This paper aims to discussa particular expectation -or concern- which is: Will this liberalization of the Americascontribute to increase or to decrease the huge gap in per capita income between theindustrialized economies of the North, -Canada and the U.S.- and the other thirty-twocountries? Based on the analysis of empirical evidence on current trade areas in the region, we conclude that even in the case of equal trade, where the agreement manages to conciliatethe interests of developed and less developed countries, income convergence will, probably, notbe one of the outcomes of this liberalization. The lack of symmetry in an area which gatherscountries at very different stages of development, an asymmetry much more pronounced in theFTAA because it includes the largest economy in the world, prevent us from expecting incomeconvergence even if this trade area becomes a successful one.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.020 |
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".