MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167026632 · doi:10.2991/assehr.k.210531.023

Influencing Factors of the United States Renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) under the Trump Administration

2021· article· en· W3167026632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nisrina Nur Aathif

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Political and Economic Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFree trade agreementAdministration (probate law)International tradeInternational economicsBusinessFree tradeEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States (US) joined North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trade regime along with Canada and Mexico to increase trade among members by reducing or eliminating trade restrictions such as tariffs and import quotas. Under the Trump administration, the United States-for the first time-proposed changes to NAFTA and stated it would leave NAFTA if the proposed changes were rejected. This research attempts to elaborate on the factors that influenced US renegotiation of NAFTA, which had been implemented since 23 years. The realist and liberalist approaches are insufficient to explain such behavior because insufficient attention is paid to the role of ideas and social construction. Therefore, the theory used to answer the research question is the international regime theory: a weak cognitivist approach that considers that state behavior in a regime's order is generally based on the ideas and knowledge possessed by the state, the learning process, and the role of epistemic communities.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.034
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities researchSame topicGlobal Political and Economic RelationsFrench-language works237,207