Bibliographic record
Abstract
My dissertation is an empirical analysis of the geography of international trade that is primarily focused on the interregional trade flows within Canada and the United States, but begins with an analysis of international trade flows at the international level to place Canada - United States interregional trade in a global context. Throughout my dissertation empirical methods are not only employed, but extended and developed to address issues with past research. At the international level, I find that globalization defined as an integrated global economy is not present. Rather, international trade flows are intensely regionally focused and the intensity of that focus has not decreased over time. In fact, distance and proximity have become more important in determining trading regions since 1981. At the national level, I find that there was substantial change occurring within the Canada - United States trading relationship prior to the establishment of the Canada - United States Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA). Prior to the establishment of the CUFTA, Canada appeared to be moving into the lower-end of product quality trade relative to the United States. However, since the establishment of the CUFTA that pattern has reversed. Now, Canada appears to be moving into higher-end product quality trade with the United States. This is altering the spatial division of quality-based production in North America. And at the regional level, Canada - United States interregional trade flows have altered their spatial configuration since the establishment of free trade. Prior to the establishment of the free trade agreements, the Canadian provinces were overwhelmingly focused on interprovincial trade. However, with the removal of trade barriers to the U.S. states, Canadian provinces are now trading significantly more with the southern neighbours. The levels of interprovincial trade remain high, but the shares of provincial trade to and from the United States are now increasing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".