СТАН КАНАДСЬКО-АМЕРИКАНСЬКИХ ЕКОНОМІЧНИХ ВІДНОСИН НА ПОЧАТКУ ХХІ СТОЛІТТЯ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes the current state of economic relations between Canada and the United States. The authors noted that in Ukrainian science there are almost no publications on a given topic. The topic is much more developed by Canadian researchers. Which is an element of the relevance of the study of Canadian-American relations. The authors described the two-way relationship between the United States and Canada and the cooperation of countries in the political and economic organization NAFTA. The authors demonstrated a significant increase in the volume of Canadian-American trade since the launch of NAFTA and stressed that this organization also increased the competitiveness of countries and changed the structure of trade. The article noted that the relationship between Canada and the United States is not equivalent, since US trade is more important for Canada than trade with Canada for the United States. Sometimes, the United States seeks to influence Canadian political decisions because of the Canadian economy’s dependence on trade with the United States. An example is the case when the United States banned the sale of Canadian conifer in the United States through the refusal of Canada to engage in US counter-terrorism activities against Iraq. This case had positive effects on the economy of Canada, since Canada has since diversified its economic relations. So, it has increased trade with countries such as China, Japan, India and the European Union. Cool relations between Canada and the United States were between 2001 and 2006, after which trade increased. In 2006, pro-American prime minister Stephen Harper came to power in Canada. The largest volume of bilateral trade was achieved in 2014, when trade in goods between Canada and the US amounted to 750.7 billion dollars. And these were the highest rates in the world. In 2015, trade fell by 12 percent. Today, the United States and Canada are leaders in investing in each other.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.009 |
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".