MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900152215 · doi:10.29173/psur67

The Impact of NAFTA on Australia’s Trade and the Implications of Preferential Trade

2016· article· en· W2900152215 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jarrad Marthaller

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Science Undergraduate Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeProtectionismFree tradeInternational economicsInternational free trade agreementTrade barrierEconomicsFree trade agreementGeneral partnershipOrder (exchange)Regional tradeCommercial policyEconomic integration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article will be exploring and evaluating trade relations between Australia and The United States of America, with a particular focus on the effects of NAFTA (North American Free Trade agreement) on the amount of trade between these two countries. I used trade data available over a narrow span of several decades in order to create several tables that document the change in volume of trade between Australia and The United States in an attempt to demonstrate that NAFTA and Preferential Trade Agreements in general run contrary to the principles of free trade that the World Trade organization espouses. By showing a strong relation between a downturn in the demand for Australian exports and the timing of the NAFTA’s signing, I show that Preferential Trade Agreements such as NAFTA and more recently, the Trans-Pacific Partnership may be leading to protectionist regional blocs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical Science Undergraduate ReviewSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207