The Applicability of NAFTA to the Subsidization of U.S.-Based NHL Teams: Legal and Economic Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTIONN recent years, there has been a proliferation of regional free trade agreements worldwide.The major regional trading blocs are the European Union (EU), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Southern Cone Customs Union (MERCOSUR), and the Andean Pact.'When the framers of international trade agreements draft various clauses in an agreement, they presumably have some pre-conceived notions as to the types of situations to which each clause is intended to apply.Sometimes, however, the legal drafting of the agreement is such that it allows certain clauses to be used for purposes not originally considered or intended by the framers.Chapter 11 of NAFTA is one such example of this unintended application.Chapter 11 requires the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments to provide "fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security ' 2 to investments of foreign companies.Specifically, Chapter 11 allows companies in a NAFTA country to sue governments of other NAFTA member countries for compensation, if their investments have been hurt by the host countries' laws or regulations.3 Thus, a private business could initiate legal action against a foreign government under NAFTA, even though NAFTA is an international trade agreement between sovereign states.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".