MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765731823

Dynamics of Economic Integration in Venezuela and Their Implications for the FTAA Process

2009· article· en· W2765731823 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles H. Blake

Bibliographic record

VenueSMU Scholar (Southern Methodist University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamics (music)Process (computing)Political scienceComputer sciencePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caldera participated in the first Summit of the Americas in Miami, Florida.Although Caldera had criticized some aspects of market-oriented economics during his successful 1993 election campaign, the Venezuelan delegation backed the integration initiative central to the Miami summit.In December 1994, along with all thirty-three heads of state in attendance, Caldera signed the Miami Declaration endorsing the negotiation of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA):We, therefore, resolve to begin immediately to construct the [FTAA], in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated.We further resolve to conclude the negotiation of the [FTAA] no later than 2005, and agree that concrete progress toward the attainment of this objective will be made by the end of this century. 1Furthermore, during the second half of his presidential term, the Caldera government pursued several market-oriented reforms as part of the Venezuelan Agenda program formed in the wake of an International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreement signed in July 1996.Although Caldera's successor, President Hugo Chdvez, signed the 2001 Quebec City Declaration stemming from the third Summit of the Americas, Venezuela was the only country in the hemisphere to express written reservations regarding its potential support for the FTAA.In late 2005, Chivez participated in the fourth Summit of the Americas in Mar del

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSMU Scholar (Southern Methodist University)Same topicEconomic Theory and PolicyFrench-language works237,207