Moving Toward a Trade and Indigenous Peoples' Chapter in a Modernized NAFTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) offers a unique opportunity to better align international trade and investment with international Indigenous and human rights law. The announcement that Canada is seeking the inclusion of an Indigenous peoples’ chapter in NAFTA as a priority is a bold step to protect Indigenous rights, while enhancing Indigenous peoples’ increased participation in international trade. Not only does Canada’s prioritization of a progressive trade agenda, which includes the promotion of an Indigenous peoples’ chapter, help to realize economic equity, it is also consistent with Canada’s stated commitment to Indigenous rights and renewed nation-to-nation and Inuit-to-Crown relationships. In order for Canada to take the lead globally in progressive and inclusive trade, the government must develop a process for broader-based collaboration in a spirit of cooperative decision making in accordance with international law. The adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration) in 2007 and the more recent reaffirmation of Indigenous rights in the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP), lend credence to the claim that participation of Indigenous peoples in the negotiation of international trade and investment agreements, which have the potential to impact their rights, is consistent with international law. Canada should continue to push for a chapter on Indigenous peoples and trade in NAFTA, for both principled and pragmatic reasons: creating opportunities that enhance Indigenous cross-border trade and obtaining the consent of Indigenous peoples for NAFTA negotiations would provide increased economic certainty, which is attractive to international investors.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".