Canada First vs. America First: Economic Nationalism and the Evolution of Canada-U.S. Trade Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract ----- Abstract Even though the nationalist policies of the current U.S. administration have taken the appearance of a radical shift away from the (neo)liberal approaches of preceding governments, they in fact represent the latest protectionist manifestation of the American system of industrial development and trade, characterised by economic nationalism since the Civil War of 1861-1865 and beyond. Recent trade disputes between the U.S. and Canada, from this perspective, have to be construed in light of a century and a half long evolution of trade relations between the two countries, profoundly marked by the mutations of American economic nationalism. Yet, Canada itself was never immune to protectionist tendencies. In fact, Canada was for a long time during the 20th century more protectionist than the U.S., and many of its own nationalist trade policies from the 1860s onward had significant effects on commercial relationships with the latter. The main objective of this article is therefore that of contextualisation: it paints a picture of the evolution of Canada-U.S. trade policies and relationships which brings “economic nationalism” back in. Its main argument is that these relationships have been characterised by a constant tension between liberalisation and protection, to which Canadian governments have contributed in many ways. Keywords: Canada, United States, Economic Nationalism, Trade, Protectionism, Liberalisation
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".