MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112705986 · doi:10.1177/1057567705275669

The Management of Border Security in NAFTA

2005· article· en· W2112705986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martha L. Cottam, Otwin Marenin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Criminal Justice Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLatin American and Latino Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilemmaInternational tradeEnforcementFree movementLimitingPolitical scienceFree trade agreementBusinessPolitical economyDevelopment economicsFree tradeEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a free trade area, NAFTA requires the relatively unrestricted movement of people, goods, and services across the borders between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Although the proponents of NAFTA emphasize positive economic outcomes for the three partners, the dependence of those outcomes on open borders inevitably brings with it the prospect of greater opportunities for transnational criminal activities, generally, and for narcotrafficking, in particular. Managing the free flow of goods and people while limiting the free flow of illegal substances and criminals is the central dilemma of the war on drugs in NAFTA. Cooperation between the member states differs strikingly, with smooth cooperation along the northern border between the United States and Canada and a troubling lack of cooperation along the U.S.-Mexico border. The different patterns in cooperation among policy makers and law enforcement agencies are largely attributable to mutual perceptions and nationalism in all three countries.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Criminal Justice ReviewSame topicLatin American and Latino StudiesFrench-language works237,207