Особливості інтеграційної взаємодії країн Північної Америки в рамках угод про вільну торгівлю: НАФТА та НАФТА 2.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper is focused on the overview of the main aspects of the North American free trade agreements known as NAFTA (1994) and NAFTA 2.0 (2018). Cooperation of the USA, Canada and Mexico within NAFTA is dealing with liberalization of trade, elimination of tariffs, greater access to the mutual markets, investments, services etc. The old agreement was completed with the supplementary arrangements on environmental and labor cooperation, which were fixed in additional acts. Since 1994, all three countries have demonstrated mixed (positive and negative) views on integration within NAFTA both among experts and ordinary people. There was a perception of the need to revise the terms of the free trade agreement, but there was never any thought about the complete cancellation of the deal. U.S. President Trump initiated the reconsideration of NAFTA, which led to the emergence of a new agreement, now called NAFTA 2.0. It deals mainly with the economic and trade issues, investments and access to the markets, requirements to the producers, consumer protections etc. But it was also negotiated about such issues as protection of the environment, labor, intellectual property and copyright, culture, gender equality and support of indigenous peoples. In general, among the main features of the integration interaction within North America, the following can be named: (1) the continuity of economic and political cooperation that has been started since the establishment of bilateral ties between the USA, Mexico and Canada; (2) the comprehensive nature of cooperation within NAFTA’s structures and new agreements; (3) the importance of such issues as labor, environment, gender equality and nondiscrimination which are interpreted as the essential part and basis for the free trade; (4) the implementation of cooperation on both governmental and local levels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.071 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".