MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163646366 · doi:10.1177/0192512102023002002

Political Parties and ngos in the Creation of New Trading Blocs in the Americas

2002· article· en· W2163646366 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura Macdonald, Mildred A. Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Political Science Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationPoliticsCitizen journalismContext (archaeology)State (computer science)Political sciencePower (physics)Political economyResistance (ecology)International tradeBusinessEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of free trade agreements in North America has challenged the capacities of existing political organizations to play representative and responsive roles. This article evaluates the comparative roles of political parties, ngos, and the state in regional debates leading to the development of nafta. Changes following from those interactions are now reflected in ongoing negotiations over ftaa. In the latter context, the Canadian experience indicates an apparent strengthening role for ngos in the formulation of free trade policies along with signs of resistance to this increased participation among decision-makers. Alongside these internal developments are those involving the building of cross-border ties. While states (and thus the representatives of presently governing parties) continue to control the trade agenda, more broadly participatory forms of consultation on trade agreements are developing, gradually enhancing the representative role of ngos as well as providing new opportunities for parties (in and out of power) to improve their own performance.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.012
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Political Science ReviewSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207