Bibliographic record
Abstract
By the mid-1980s, the growth of the maquiladoras, Mexico's entrance into the GATT, and the three North American governments' willingness to relax trade rules signaled that the regional economic integration tsunami was unlikely to recede. North American unions, however, were unprepared to respond collectively to the possible economic devastation they faced. Forty years of Cold War politicking and divisiveness left them with a weak institutional foundation from which to organize trinationally. And then came NAFTA. It was widely believed the agreement would generate national responses by labor unions in each of the three countries, but little transnational contestation. This assumption was plausible given past behavior – the underwhelming response of U.S. unions to NAFTA's precursor, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA). Whereas the agreement catalyzed the most significant political struggle in decades among Canadian unions (and civil society organizations), it generated little reaction from unions south of their border, despite joint membership in many of the same internationals. The former secretary-treasurer of the CLC revealed that this caused some resentment among Canadian activists: There were a number of discussions between the leadership of the AFL-CIO and the CLC … and the AFL-CIO simply just didn't think it was a big issue that they were prepared to put all their resources into as opposed to NAFTA. … And it angered us somewhat, saying you know, oh yeah, they mouth all the right words but they're doing diddly squat about it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.016 |
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".