Sleeping with an Elephant: A Canadian Defence Against 21st Century U.S. Protectionism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper to addresses the protectionist actions of the United States in the early 21st century, analyzes their effect on Canadian investors, and reviews the available remedies. It asserts that U.S. protectionism is in direct contravention to the spirit and intent of NAFTA, and that protectionist action should be considered tantamount to expropriation, thereby justifying the use by Canadian investors of NAFTA Chapter 11, as found and as amended, as a method of recourse. To do this, this paper establishes the need for qualified free trade and identifies the importance of a fresh discussion of Canada-U.S. trade. It then highlights recent cases of U.S. protectionist actions with a focus on the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Finally, it argues for a more aggressive use of NAFTA Chapter 11 in its present form and with a proposed amendment to include domestic investors. By providing domestic investors the opportunity for compensation for the protectionist action of a NAFTA partner, this amendment will act not only as a mechanism for recourse, protecting those adversely-affected investors, but ultimately, as a deterrent to NAFTA partners from protectionist conduct.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".