Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates a possible US-SACU (Southern African Customs Union) free trade agreement as part of a US approach to new preferential trade agreements characterized by the term "competitive liberalization."This is the idea that competition among large countries (US/EU) to negotiate preferential arrangements with smaller countries or regions will lower barriers, and eventually add fresh impulse to new multilateral WTO negotiations.In commercial policy terms, the US interest in such an arrangement lies in improved access to a smaller but more protected market where the EU already has preferential arrangements, and the SACU interest lies in improved access to a much larger but less protected market.There is also a SACU interest in weakening the trade restrictive effects of MFA quotas in the US for apparel imports.The risk of entrapment in extremely complex rules of origin arrangements which at times close markets (as in NAFTA and other US bilaterals) is a concern for SACU.Also, gains to SACU may be only temporary because of the US proposal to eliminate non agricultural tariffs entirely in the WTO by 2015.In key non commodity trade areas (services, investment, intellectual property, temporary entry of business persons), if other US bilaterals are any guide most liberalization requested will be heavily asymmetric if not unilateral on the SACU side.SACU does not currently cover any of these items since it is only a customs union, and prior negotiation will be needed among SACU countries.SACU also clearly has an interest in coordinating its negotiation with other US bilateral negotiating partners.These and other barriers to negotiation (including negotiating capacity constraints in several SACU members) will influence the outcome of negotiations.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".