Bibliographic record
Abstract
of January 1994. If one judges a free trade area by the size of its output and territory, North America became the largest in the world, larger than the European Union. Yet that fact escaped all but a few analysts. It is widely known that the United States has the world’s largest economy, but North America also includes the eighth (Canada) and ninth (Mexico) largest economies (The Economist, 2003: 24). Within a decade, trade and investment among the three countries had nearly tripled, and North America had achieved a level of integration (defined as intra-regional trade as a percent of world trade) that approached Europe’s (58 percent as compared to 61 percent). In other words, North America is no longer just a geographical expression. It has become a formidable, integrated region, comparable in some respects to the European Union. And yet few in North America or outside view the region as anything more than three sovereign countries: a global superpower and two uncomfortable neighbors. It is not hard to explain this perception. The United States accounts for 85 percent of the region’s gross output and a much higher percentage of the region’s military power and reach. The other two countries of North America are very dependent on the United States economically, and partly because of that, have used their foreign policies to define their distance and separateness from it. NAFTA, which can be considered a kind of draft constitution for an emerging region, dismantled most trade and investment barriers and accelerated social and economic integration. That compelling fact and the security implications that flow from September 11 brought the leaders of the three North American countries together for a summit in
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.455 | 0.253 |
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".