MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479822871 · doi:10.1057/9780230612945_9

Canada and the Politics of Regional Economic Integration in the Americas

2008· book-chapter· en· W2479822871 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic integrationFree trade agreementPoliticsPolitical scienceOpposition (politics)Regional integrationInternational free trade agreementFree tradeInternational tradeEconomyPolitical economyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a key actor in two intersecting regional integration projects, Canada’s position can arguably reveal much about the complex dynamics of economic integration in the Americas. Canada has undergone a fundamental shift in its economic and foreign policy priorities since the late 1980s that has brought it closer to the hemisphere. After a long history of rejection of a comprehensive free trade relationship with the United States, the Canadian government first sought, and later signed, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which entered into effect in 1989 (against much popular opposition). Canada was a less willing participant in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) after Mexico decided to imitate Canada’s success in gaining preferential access to the U.S. economy, but the Canadian state has since become a proud NAFTA booster. As well, after belatedly entering into inter-American politics by joining the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1990, Canada has become one of the most active and prominent countries in promoting a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). As discussed elsewhere in this volume, the prominent role of the United States is one of the most controversial aspects of the ongoing process of regional economic integration in the Americas. Can Canada present a “kindler, gentler” face to the economic integration project? 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooksSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207