Elections, Political Integration, and North America: Exploring the Unknown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dados los efectos de los procesos electorales transfronterizos, ¿qué tan factible es la integración política de América del Norte? Aun si en términos generales se satisfacen los principios teóricos neofuncionalistas y de las comunidades de seguridad, este estudio señala que la integración política regional depende, en última instancia, de: a) un cambio hacia una orientación bipartidista; b) la institucionalización de tal cambio; c) el peso relativo de los impulsos de integración y desintegración; d) las salvaguardas contra los impactos externos; e) la creación de nuevas oportunidades de cooperación, y f) la compatibilidad en el liderazgo. Entre otros hallazgos: a) las elecciones de Estados Unidos tienen mayor impacto sobre Canadá y México que viceversa; b) los insuficientes flujos económicos canadienses y mexicanos ahondan la asimetría frente a Estados Unidos; c) tanto el liderazgo pragmático como el ideológico nutren el proceso de norteamericanización, y d) los principales asuntos de la posguerra fría ciertamente incrementan la influencia de México en Washington a expensas de Canadá. Al favorecer la interdependencia sobre la integración, en el caso de Norteamérica la asimetría se convierte en la gota que derramará el vaso.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".