Investment Regulations in the United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the special feature of investment regulations contained in the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). This agreement aims to replace and modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The author analyzes U.S. administration’s approach to the development of this agreement, as well as the new elements in USMCAs’ investment regulations. US administration’s approach is based on the US trade deficit indicator, which is used to measure the agreements’ success or failure. This approach might be counterproductive. Trade imbalances are determined by underlying macroeconomic fundamentals. Mostly, the relationship between saving and investment within each country plays a big part. The biggest change from NAFTA is the curtailment of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The US administration argued that without the recourse to ISDS provided to companies overseas, companies would be more inclined to invest in the United States. Thus US investors loose robust international law protection. This agreement introduces new elements in the regulation of investments in the financial services sector, while focusing on expanding customer service capabilities and efficiency gains, taking into account the impact of technological innovations. The most important provisions are the prohibition of local data storage requirements, data protection and confidentiality of personal information exchange, the use and location of computing facilities by financial institutions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".