From Interests to Identity?: Opposition to North American Integration in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two main wellsprings of anti-regionalism in the United States, both of which have been politically important over the last twenty years, but to varying degrees, and in varying ways. On one hand, there is an “interest” based opposition, which is constituted and driven by the anticipation of direct or indirect economic effects on regional or sectoral groups. This aspect of anti-regionalism in the US is consistent with conventional trade theory arguments about the formation of protectionist and anti-protectionist coalitions, and with the basic interest-group/pluralist model of politics more generally. On the other hand, there is an “identity” based opposition, which is constituted and driven by the anticipation of political or social effects on the national community writ large, including the attenuation of national sovereignty, democracy (popular sovereignty), cultural and social coherence. This latter current cannot be reconciled with conventional interest-based accounts, but it might be explicable by the kinds of “identity”-based interpretations advanced to describe regional politics in other parts of the world—notably Europe and East Asia. Though both interest-based and identity-based oppositions have played an important part in fuelling anti-regionalist pressures in the United States, the relative weight of identity-based opposition seems to have increased since NAFTA was ratified in 1993, and particularly after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".