MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2476226485 · doi:10.1057/9780230346819_7

US Trade Agreements

2011· book-chapter· en· W2476226485 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dale Colyer

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeFree trade agreementAdministration (probate law)International economicsPolitical scienceSustainable developmentRegional tradeBusinessFree tradeEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since NAFTA’s implementation, the United States has entered into several regional and bilateral free-trade agreements (see Table 7.1). Prior to NAFTA the US had only negotiated two bilateral agreements, those with Israel and Canada; the latter agreement was superseded by NAFTA. Neither of those had significant environmental provisions, although both the US-Israel and Canada-US (CUSTA) agreements incorporated Article XX of GATT. Bailey (1992–93) claims that dissatisfaction with the environmental results of CUSTA resulted in pressure to include environmental provisions in NAFTA. He says that after two years of experience some reports indicated that the agreement “resulted in a general undermining of safety standards, sustainable development, and environmental protection” (p. 849). Thus, environmental measures were incorporated in NAFTA upon its completion during the Clinton administration and they have been included in all subsequent US agreements, although their nature and extent vary considerably from one agreement to another. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1220.051

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207