MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900221517 · doi:10.29173/psur39

Redundancy in the Twenty-First Century: An Examination of and Argument Against APEC

2017· article· en· W2900221517 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erika Hage

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Science Undergraduate Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Asia pacificPolitical scienceRedundancy (engineering)International tradeRelevance (law)EconomicsInternational economicsComputer scienceLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Once poised to become a significant regional trade agreement (RTA), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s (APEC) strength has waned in the twentyfirst century, leading many to question its viability and relevance as a cooperation. Taking into account several other RTAs that have arisen in Asia and the Pacific, the paper examines whether APEC still aligns with the interests of the Cooperation’s nations and economies. A closer examination of how APEC is structured reveals several weaknesses inherent in the RTA. These, coupled with the vast geography APEC encompasses, calls into question whether APEC can continue to effectively function in its intended capacity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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