MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991318409 · doi:10.1111/cjag.12212

Agriculture in the United States, Mexico, Canada Agreement: Agreeing to keep things pretty much the same

2019· article· en· W2991318409 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
William A. Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFree trade agreementInternational tradeAgricultureCompensation (psychology)Value (mathematics)Market accessBusinessState (computer science)EconomicsInternational economicsFree tradeGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was referred to by U.S. President Trump as one of the worst trade deals ever made. Given this billing, one might have expected the result of its renegotiation to be a major change to the trading relationship between the United States and Canada. The new United States, Mexico, Canada Agreement (USMCA), however, retains a great deal of its predecessor. This is particularly true for agricultural trade. Canadian market access into the United States remains virtually unchanged. No major domestic regulatory changes were agreed to by Canada. While there were concessions made on market access for U.S. products into Canada's heavily protected sectors where the supply management policy applies, they do not appear to threaten the system. While the value of the compensation has not yet been announced, compensation for losses that will be suffered by farmers producing under supply management is agreed in principle. The USMCA is an agreement to keep things pretty much the same.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.153
Teacher spread0.141 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207