Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Prime Minister Theresa May first proposed a “bold and ambitious free trade agreement” (FTA) to govern future trade arrangements between the European Union and the United Kingdom in a speech on January 17, 2017. More recently, on September 22, 2017, the prime minister suggested that the negotiators could do better than an “advanced free trade agreement,” such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the European Union and Canada, but offered little indication as to what form such an arrangement might take. Is it possible for the United Kingdom to achieve a new trade relationship to replace continued membership in the EU’s Single Market and/or Customs Union, which currently provides unrestricted trade? An FTA is probably the only legally feasible form of preferential trade relationship that would generally permit the duty-free, quota-free exchange of goods between the United Kingdom and the member states of the European Union. None of the other options are feasible, given the prime minister’s priorities: complete UK control over immigration from the other members of the European Union; operation under the United Kingdom’s own regulatory framework rather than under regulations and directives imposed by the European Union; the flexibility to conclude trade agreements with third countries; and avoidance of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. If despite May’s expressed hopes that an FTA becomes the best route forward, given these constraints, this article suggests that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in particular, NAFTA’s customs regulations and its rules of origin, provide useful lessons for the UK (and EU) negotiators.
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 | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".