The 'Bipartisan Trade Deal,' Trade Promotion Authority and the Future of U.S. Free Trade Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and with the American public.Never in the post-war period has such support seemed as lacking as at the present time.The year 1985 marked a pivotal period in U.S. foreign trade policy.The United States began to depart from its long-standing opposition to regional trade agreements ("RTAs").5 Specifically, it adopted a policy that both recognized the importance of RTAs and continued to value the role of the GATT (now the WTO) in Geneva.Between 1985 and 2007, the United States concluded free trade agreements ("FTAs") 6 with Israel, 7 Canada, 8 Mexico (through NAFTA), 9 Jordan, 10 Singapore, 11 Chile, 12 the DR-CAFTA nations (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua), 13 Australia, 14 Morocco, 15 Bahrain, 16 Oman, 17 Peru, 18 Colombia, 19 5.The term "regional trade agreement" is used in this article (and at the WTO) to designate trade agreements other than those negotiated globally in Geneva under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, whether the RTA is truly regional, like NAFTA or MERCOSUR, or spans several continents, such as the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement.6.A free trade agreement, as defined in GATT, is a regional agreement under the terms of which "duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce" on "substantially all trade" are eliminated "within a reasonable length of time," usually ten years.GATT, supra note 2, art.XXIV.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".