Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter reviews the historical development toward decentralization and the separation of powers. It explains how and where the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) infringed on provincial powers and how the subnational governments reacted, as well as which role they played in the implementation procedure. The chapter explores the implications for both the study&s;s null hypothesis and the fiscal federalist hypotheses. It presents the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada and Mexico, which came into force in January 1994. In some respects it went beyond the CUSFTA, particularly with its side agreements on labor and the environment that had significant implications within Canada for intergovernmental relations and the domestic implementation of the side-deals. The primary Canadian objective in negotiating the CUSFTA was to secure access to the US market through a binding dispute settlement process.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".