Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1992, the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).' NAFTA became effective on January 1, 1994.2The overall affect of NAFTA has been positive.Cross-border trade between the United States and Mexico rose 113 percent between 1993 and 1998. 3 United States' exports to Mexico had grown to $111.35 billion by 2000.' NAFTA created 350,000 American jobs.'The agreement also helped spark much needed economic reform in Mexico. 6 NAFTA has become the world's most productive trade alliance, employing almost 400 million people who produce $10 trillion in products and services. 7The agreement has not reached its full potential, however, due to controversy over cross-border trucking. B. DIFFERENCES IN REGULATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICOTo illustrate the difference in the two nations' safety standards, the following list of infractions would earn an automatic out-of-service order in the United States, but would merely incur a ticket in Mexico, with a promise to fix the problem in twenty days: Non-existent log book. 54* Incompatible hazardous materials in the same shipment. 5* Bulk loads improperly secured or blocked. 56* Identifications or warnings do not match hazardous material being hauled. 57* Missing more than 25 percent of anchoring components."* Using tanks that were not designed or authorized to transport the products being shipped. 59* Material that is leaking from a transport tank. 60 Failing to carry appropriate emergency information. 6There are also a number of areas where an out-of-service order would be very likely in the United States, but where Mexico would still only issue a ticket with a promise to fix the problem in twenty days.Examples include: * Missing or inoperable break lights.* Worn or exposed wiring.* No windshield wipers or spray jets.* A shattered or missing windshield.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".