MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997538325 · doi:10.1017/amp.2019.195

Making Sense of U.S. Trade Policy: What Recent Negotiations Can Tell Us

2019· article· en· W2997538325 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Inu Manak

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeFree trade agreementGeneral partnershipNegotiationFree tradeEconomicsCommercial policyChinaInternational economicsTrade barrierTrade agreementInternational free trade agreementPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

U.S. trade policy is not what it used to be. Since the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in January 2017, Indo-Pacific trade relations have been in constant flux. It is not clear where U.S. trade policy will end up, particularly with regard to its relationship with China. However, the conclusion of two renegotiations of previous U.S. trade agreements can tell us generally about the new U.S. approach and what this means for our trading partners. I will discuss developments from the renegotiation of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS) and the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) as a replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ASIL Annual MeetingSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207