Asymétrie de puissance et négociations économiques internationales: la zone de libre-échange des Amériques et les puissances moyennes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role played by the middle powers in international economic negotiations is neglected by the literature on the subject. However, in an international trade negotiation characterized by a configuration of global asymmetry but with a relative symmetry between the dominant actors, the role played by the middle powers such as Canada constitutes a central factor in the success of the negotiation. Taking the example of the prenegotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, this article shows how the middle powers facilitated the success of this crucial phase for the continuation of the negotiations. Le rôle joué par les puissances moyennes dans les négociations économiques internationales n'a pas beaucoup retenu l'attention des chercheurs. Pourtant, dans une négociation commerciale internationale caractérisée par une configuration d'asymétrie globale de pouvoir mais de symétrie relative entre les acteurs dominants, le rôle joué par les puissances moyennes comme le Canada constitue un facteur central dans la réussite de la négociation. Prenant l'exemple des pré-négociations de la Zone de libre-échange des Amériques, cet article démontre comment les puissances moyennes ont facilité la réussite de cette phase cruciale de la poursuite des négociations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".