Federalism and Liberalization: Evaluating the Impact of American and Canadian Sub-federal Governments on the Negotiation of International Trade Agreements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that federal systems in Canada and the United States allow for the successful pursuit of sub-federal offensive and defensive priorities in the negotiation of international trade agreements. It is also clear, however, that the coercive American intrastate system limits the relevance of American states in this process, especially when compared to Canada’s relatively cooperative interstate model. Canadian provinces and territories also benefit from ideational considerations, including policy expertise and trust-ties with federal negotiators, which further strengthens sub-federal legitimacy and influence in this policy area. This study evaluates the incremental and significant impact of Canadian and American sub-federal governments across a number of sectors on the negotiations and final legal texts of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it