North american free trade, public goods, and asymmetrical bargaining: the strategic choices for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Una perspectiva de política pública sobre el acuerdo norteamericano de libre comercio no captura la lógica esencialmente política de las negociaciones entre Canadá, México y Estados Unidos, puesto que estos estados-naciones actúan diferencialmente en búsqueda tanto de beneficios económicos como poder político. Desde esta perspectiva, la renuencia de Canadá a aceptar el acuerdo se puede explicar por la siguiente razón: los políticos canadienses no vieron en un acuerdo trilateral de libre comercio la posibilidad de realizar beneficios económicos significativos o la manera de obtener mayor influencia política. Sin embargo, una causa principal de la renuencia de Canadá a participar en las negociaciones del Tratado de Libre Comercio queda afuera de la esfera de teorías sistemáticas que presumen que los estados-naciones son actores unitarios: la inestabilidad canadiense ha reducido la capacidad de este país a aspirar a un resultado mutuamente benéfico.ABSTRACTA public choice perspective on a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) falls to capture the essentially political logic of the negotiations between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. States persue political power as well as wealth. Whereas Mexico sought economic benefits from NAFTA, the United States was more motivated by geopolitical than economic interests. Canada's reluctance to accept NAFTA was due to the fact that Canadian politicians expected to achieve neither substantial economic benefits nor increased political influence under a trilateral free trade arrangement. However, a major cause of Canada's reluctance to join NAFTA talks falls outside the scope of systemic theories that assume states are unitary actors: political instability reduced Canada's bargaining horizon and lowered its motivation to pursue a mutually beneficial outcome.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".