LABOUR RIGHTS AND THE CANADA/COLOMBIA FTA: A FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED CULTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From talks around the issue of the Generalized System of Preferences and more recent talks on bilateral and multilateral FTAs, the linkage between the promotion of universal labour rights and trade has been on the agenda of policy makers, and integrated into most FTAs. In the case of the recent Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA), Canadian officials negotiated the inclusion of a side agreement on labour cooperation (ALC) in order to deepen ties between the two countries, and support Colombian workers, who face severe repression by government and paramilitary forces. The current essay will bring forward and deepen the critiques formulated by civil society actors against CCFTA, and argue that the guarantees given by the agreement and the ALC are fundamentally flawed using an examination of the underlying meaning of the words of the agreement. By taking a structural approach, it will be argued that the general culture and habitus developed through the interests and usage of symbolic capital of structural actors have a central effect on the FTA and its ALC by completely altering the meaning of their language. Such a critique offers a relevant standpoint in the context of the on-going discussions revolving around the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the general expansion of global integration through FTAs.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".