Where do we fit in? : an explanation of the provinces' place in the Canada-US relationship and their involvement in re-negotiating NAFTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore the place of the provinces in the Canada-United States relationship by looking at the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In order to understand the current Canada-US relationship, a brief overview of the history of the relationship will be presented as well as various ways to define the relationship. This paper seeks to explain the constitutional place of the provinces in this complex relationship. The Canadian economy relies on natural resources, a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The provinces feel this earns them a place at the negotiating table. This paper argues the provinces will not have a seat at the negotiating table with the federal government, as occurred during the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) negotiations. The provinces are motivated to try and recreate a CETA-like negotiation environment, which would get each province to the negotiation table. The provinces want to lobby the US federal government to create this environment because the US has more power in the Canada-US trade relationship. The personal relationships various Premiers have created will help to increase their individual provincial bargaining positions. There have been varying levels of provincial involvement in preparing for NAFTA negotiations. In order for the Canadian government to present an image of unity to the US, the provinces will not have direct involvement but will instead be consulted. This paper will argue the level of provincial involvement during CETA was an isolated example. All ten provinces at the table, vying for their own self-interests at the expense of other provinces, would harm the country as a whole.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".