Developing a novel index to evaluate labour chapters in trade agreements: Canada’s ambition–enforceability compromise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Lack of progress advancing labour provisions in multilateral trade instruments has led some countries to develop their own labour chapters in bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements. This study aims to track the evolution of 25 years of labour chapters in Canadian trade agreements. Design/methodology/approach Modelled on Hoekman (1995), the authors present a novel index using the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) core labour standards to compare and evaluate ambition and enforcement in Canada’s labour chapters. Findings The quality of Canada’s labour chapters has steadily improved from 1994 to 2020, with scores rising from 46 to 91 out of 100. In addition, Canada has used its negotiating leverage to encourage partners with weak labour regimes to make improvements. Yet, the highest quality chapters were achieved with trade partners similar to Canada, and those chapters have not pushed either party to improve their own domestic labour regimes. The authors discuss the limits of the ILO standards for addressing contemporary debates about labour and trade. Originality/value The authors’ assessment provides the first empirical evidence to demonstrate that Canada’s labour chapters have evolved over time, and that the origins of this evolution predate the Liberal government’s progressive trade agenda by several decades. The authors also suggest that Canada’s “middle road” compromise on ambition versus enforceability may increase the relevance of the index for research on other middle powers and potentially countries in the global south.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".