Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the manifestations of economic globalisation seen in recent years is the so‑called “new generation” type of trade agreements such as the TPP, CETA and TTIP. They aim at trade liberalisation, but their scope is broader, comprising other areas of socio‑economic life, more or less directly linked to trade, such as e.g.: the liberalisation of public services, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the deregulation and liberalisation of financial markets, the protection of intellectual property rights, and the cooperation in creating new rules or protecting mutual investments. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyse the scope and content of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) signed in 2016 by the European Union and Canada from the point of view of the Balassa stages of economic integration and the EU’s experience in order to state whether the naming of such agreements as trade agreements, even with the “new generation” qualification, is really justified. The analysis presented in this paper leads to the conclusion that this agreement should rather be included in the category of agreements labelled as integration agreements. Most of the CETA provisions are at the same level of sophistication as was achieved by the EU countries at the stage of building the single market, that is, at the stage of the implementation of the common market in Balassa’s nomenclature, and some of them are at the stage of economic and monetary union. The scope of the CETA, i.e. the number of areas of social and economic life regulated by it as well as their advancement and complexity, goes far beyond what is commonly understood as a trade agreement and beyond its official purpose – the creation of a free trade area between the European Union and Canada. It leads to economic integration at a level far deeper than a free trade area in its classic and common sense.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".