MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604293450 · doi:10.1017/s0008423915000232

Internal Trade Agreements in Canada: Progress, Complexity and Challenges

2015· article· en· W2604293450 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher J. Kukucha

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtectionismInternational tradeTransparency (behavior)General partnershipTransatlantic Trade and Investment PartnershipCriticismPoliticsTrade barrierInternational economicsProcurementInternal migrationPolitical scienceBusinessFree tradeEconomicsLawEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite criticism of ongoing protectionism, this study argues that Canada's internal trade regime has evolved significantly since the implementation of the original Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). This includes thirteen formal amendments to the AIT and numerous regional agreements in Western, Central, and Atlantic Canada. Borrowing from the liberal International Political Economy (IPE) literature it argues that existing regional agreements complement and offer a potential framework for broader internal trade reforms at the national level. Of these the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA) offers a promising model for Canada's internal market, with revised rules and norms related to negative lists, labour mobility, procurement, and investment and dispute settlement. Ongoing efforts to remove barriers will also be linked to a strengthened Internal Trade Secretariat, confidence-building measures, increased transparency and further reform of technical language.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0130.011
Scholarly communication0.0160.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.024 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207