Sub-National Movements and the Framing of Regional Trade Agreements: Evidence from the EU and NAFTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How have secessionist and autonomous movements reacted to regional trade agreements (RTAs)? Existing research focuses on the European Union (EU) and, taking a top-down perspective, argues that the EU has done little to help those movements affirm themselves. Adopting a more bottom-up and comparative approach, we propose that RTAs have functioned as political opportunity structures at the international level and that movements have skillfully framed them to define for themselves and their audiences, their grievances, identity, and vision for the future. Movements have followed two basic approaches. Some have embraced RTAs to denounce the debilitating grips of national governments on their people, project an image of themselves as cosmopolitan and modern players, and depict a future in which their communities thrive as successful players in the international community. Others have rejected RTAs to make clear what is wrong and corrupt about the world, present themselves as protectors of local identities and traditions, and promote a vision of the future in which their communities flourish while shielded from excessive interference from the outside. Movements from the left and right ends of the political spectrum have adopted each approach according to their own specific profiles. Evidence comes from the Lega Nord in Italy, the Zapatistas in Mexico, Converge 'ncia i Unio' in Spain, and the Quebecois nationalists in Canada. This article concludes with reflections on the relationship between movements and international political opportunity structures, and lines for future research.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".