MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2935025186

A Comparative Analysis of the Regulation of State and Provincial Governments in NAFTA and GATT/WTO

2005· article· en· W2935025186 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward T. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueChicago journal of international law · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeFree tradeInternational trade lawTrade barrierInternational economic lawGeneral Agreement on Trade in ServicesEconomicsPolitical scienceState (computer science)Comparative advantageInternational economicsLiberalizationPosition (finance)International free trade agreementInternational lawPublic international lawLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Article reviews the manner in which international trade regimes regulate state and provincial behavior by comparing and contrasting the "federal clauses" of the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT")/WTO. Section II provides an overview of the current aggressive trade agenda and how subfederal actors in the United States and Canada are becoming increasingly involved in trade issues, with potential negative ramifications for the international trade system. Section III explores the constitutional distribution of powers in the United States and Canada and how this impacts the international trade system. Section IV examines the history of GATT/WTO and NAFTA efforts to regulate federal nation-states, including a look at relevant international dispute settlement decisions. Section V concludes with a summary of the challenges facing international regulation of federal nation-states and recommendations for improving regulation in this area.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChicago journal of international lawSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207