MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125927825

Playing from Strength: Canada’s Trade Deal Priorities for Financial Services

2016· article· en· W3125927825 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaGeneral partnershipNegotiationFinancial servicesGovernment (linguistics)BusinessOrder (exchange)International tradeFinancePolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The financial services sector plays a crucial role in the growth of the Canadian economy. How and where Canada looks abroad for opportunities will be critical in determining the future success of this industry. The announcement by the United States President-elect that he would withdraw his country’s signature from the recently concluded Trans Pacific Partnership, may in fact create the conditions for a flurry of negotiations aimed at concluding narrower deals. This Commentary summarizes the important competitive strengths that Canada has built in financial and related services, and ranks the markets which Canadian trade policymakers should prioritize in order to exploit these advantages. To evaluate high priority countries for Canada’s trade negotiators, we created a ranking methodology. Specifically, we sought to answer two questions that evaluate attractiveness and feasibility respectively: • Where would opening up trade in financial services provide the greatest benefit to the Canadian economy? • Where is it most realistic, given what we already know about these particular countries? Results from analyzing these two questions suggest a set of five priority markets. First, is the continued importance of TPP signatories, Mexico, the United States, and Chile, all of which Canada has agreements with, as well as Australia, Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam, with which Canada does not. Although the TPP is unlikely to survive, something like it, or a “plan B” involving the TPP signatory countries, should be on the Canadian government’s agenda. China is next on our priority list. From an attractiveness standpoint, China ranks at the top, as it is a fast-growing emerging market but remains fairly closed, meaning there is much potential in principle for a trade agreement with that country to have a positive impact on Canada. The next country on our priority list, India, is another large emerging economy that is strong from an attractiveness perspective but with whom our assessment of the feasibility of doing a deal is less glowing. Nevertheless, despite labour market concerns that have derailed previous attempts to conclude a trade agreement, India remains a strong candidate. ASEAN countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand continue to be valuable targets for Canadian trade negotiators. All have different strengths and weaknesses, but both individually and as a group they offer much from a Canadian perspective. In the Americas, we suggest that smaller partners such as the Dominican Republic could be new and interesting targets for Canada. While not themselves powers in financial services, they have shown a clear interest in liberalizing trade, including in services, and have good growth prospects in the heart of what is a fast-evolving Caribbean basin. Even in the current environment, Canada can likely successfully promote services trade liberalization, focusing on areas of existing and emerging advantages such as financial and related services – many of which it shares with the United States – and on markets that are likely to be more promising and receptive. Such sectoral and bilateral approaches continue to hold a lot of potential for growth.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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