Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the EU: Complementary Markets or Global Competitors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The governments and businessmen of the continent are actively promoting since 1994, the creation of the largest commercial block in the world, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). 34 countries will be included in this agreement, covering a territory that goes from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. The FTAA will have an enormous impact on the lives of the 800 million people who live on this continent. However, many of us never heard of its existence. The FTAA was launched in 1994, at the First Summit of the Americas held in Miami, when the US president invited 33 heads of government - all but Cuba - to create a common agenda for the future of the Americas. The fundamental priority in this agenda was free trade and the expansion of the Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which includes Canada, the United States, and Mexico, all of America. In 1998, the Second Summit of the Americas was held in Santiago, Chile. After the launching of the FTAA, a complicated and hard process of negotiations began with axis in the annual meetings held by the ministers of economy of the participating countries of the process of constitution of the commercial block. Other complementary issues, for example at the political and military levels, are part of these negotiations. Currently the negotiations are aimed at obtaining a global text for governments and negotiating groups for the annual meeting to be held in Argentina in April 2001, in such a way that the Third Summit of the Americas to be held at the end of the same month in Quebec, Canada, represents a qualitative step towards the goal of bringing the FTAA into force in 2005.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".