Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using same-sex marriage as a presently salient site of cultural struggle, this article asks whether the U.S. can expect economic integration with Canada-on the scale envisioned by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)-without feeling the influence of Canadian culture. The author comes at this question from the United States side because, while much has been written from Canadian points of view as to whether it is possible to protect and maintain national differences in the face of economic integration with the United States, very little has been written about whether economic globalization in North America could mean that Canadian cultural norms will make their way, in some version or another, to U.S. soil. The author argues that recent legal, economic, social, and technological developments make it increasingly unlikely that the United States can continue to reject same-sex marriage (with very few exceptions) when Canada has already endorsed it. The article suggests that NAFTA is, in fact, an integrationist project, and concludes that the U.S. will not be able to maintain its historic stance of political and cultural isolation - at least vis-ei-vis Canada - in the face of economic globalization. This leads the author to ask whether international and comparative legal methods are able to account for norm harmonization and emerging relationships under regional trade agreements. The author suggests that the answer is "not entirely. "Transnational economic integration may require a shift in the way we think about transnational relationships, economic globalization and the "nation-state." In the end, the author argues for a transnationalization of methods to better understand these concepts and phenomena.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".