Recent Evolution in International Trade in the Transatlantic Area: Unexpected Consequences or Nothing New Under the Sun?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since January 2017, the US Government has taken some controversial positions in international trade. This includes, most notably, the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, the implementation of higher tariffs on steel and aluminum, and the suspension of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The present contribution wishes to study whether the US trade positions have caused any effect in transatlantic trade relations, with a specific focus on the EU, Canada and Mexico. Formal trade talks between the EU and Canada and the EU and Mexico go back at least to the 1970s. Currently, EU–Canada and EU–Mexico trade relations revolve mainly around the EU–Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), provisionally entered into force in September 2017, and the modernization of the Global Agreement between the EU and Mexico, the trade part of which was concluded in principle in April 2018. This contribution argues that the US trade agenda has generated some effects in transatlantic trade relations, such as strengthening the economic and geopolitical alliance between the EU, Canada and Mexico and accelerating their agreements negotiation and/or approval. These effects, however, are not surprising. Indeed, they perfectly follow a historical pattern according to which the EU, Canada and Mexico have always tried to strengthen their economic and political ties as a reaction to US moves. That notwithstanding, it is argued that the CETA and the modernized Global Agreement are innovative in a number of areas and this is the result of a number of circumstances and US moves that predate President Trump administration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".