NAFTA Ten Years Later - The Environmental Side Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On January 1, 1994, Mexico, Canada, and the United States implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As part of that process, the three nations also began to operate under NAFTA's Environmental Side Agreements. Ten years have elapsed and it is worthwhile to examine issues associated with the decade's efforts to improve environmental conditions in North America and enhance environmental health along the Mexico-U.S. border. This paper is an initial product of the Environmental and Water Resources Institute's (EWRI) Task Committee on Trans-boundary Environmental Management in Canada, Mexico and USA after NAFTA (NAFTA Task Committee), which was set up in 2002 to monitor developments under NAFTA. It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the environmental consequences under NAFTA. This paper does describe the activities in three trans-boundary environmental institutions established under the NAFTA environmental side agreements: the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC), and the North American Development Bank (NADBank). These comments are based in part upon visits by the co-authors to Washington, D.C. to discuss NAFTA with officials of the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in February 2003 and their participation as EWRI representatives at the Tenth CEC Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) Meeting in Washington DC, held June 23 through 25, 2003.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".