Framing del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN) en la opinión publicada por la prensa mexicana: los primeros cuatro meses de Trump. Framing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the Opinion Published by the Mexican Press: The First Four Months of Trump.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spanish Abstract: Una de las promesas de la campana electoral de Donald Trump fue la renegociacion del Tratado de Libre Comercio de America del Norte (TLCAN), firmado en 1994 por Estados Unidos, Canada y Mexico. Ya con Trump como presidente, ?reflejo la prensa mexicana la inquietud y las perspectivas respecto a las implicaciones que la renegociacion del TLCAN tendria para el pais? Esto podria comprobarse con un analisis de las piezas de opinion, en las que distintos autores pueden ofrecer su interpretacion de la actualidad sin constricciones de objetividad e imparcialidad. Este articulo, recurriendo al “framing” y a la critica retorica como base metodologica, ofrece un analisis de las piezas de opinion relativas al TLCAN que se publicaron en dos periodicos mexicanos (El Universal y Reforma) durante los primeros cuatro meses de gobierno de Donald Trump. English Abstract: One of the promises of Donald Trump's election campaign was the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed in 1994 by the United States, Canada and Mexico. Since Trump has been in office, has the Mexican press reflected the concerns and prospects that renegotiating NAFTA would have for the country? This could be verified with an analysis of the pieces of opinion, in which different authors can offer their interpretation without the constraints of objectivity and impartiality. This article, using framing and rhetorical criticism as a methodological basis, offers an analysis of the opinion pieces about NAFTA that were published in two Mexican newspapers (El Universal and Reforma) during the first four months of Donald Trump’s government.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".