MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Dragon in the Caribbean: the future of CARICOM-China trade relations

2021· article· en· W3208439753 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Baksh, Mikayla Darbasie, C. Rodulfo, Shannon Potter

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Discourse · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaInternational tradeCompetition (biology)Investment (military)International economicsEuropean unionSingle marketEconomicsBusinessPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the years, the trade performance of CARICOM states has decreased as a result of poor direct investment inflows, increasing global competition and the dependence of CARICOM states on their long-standing relationships with Europe and the US. The East Asian market is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world and has been highlighted as a potential region for CARICOM states to diversify their export markets. China is the largest entity within this market and is one of the world’s largest trading nations. China’s economic prowess has growing influence, and coupled with the erosion of CARICOM’s traditional trading relationships, it is essential to explore the possibility of engaging in deeper economic relations with China. Ultimately, this article proposes the creation of a comprehensive economic and trade agreement between CARICOM and China, based on a model agreement developed between Canada and the European Union. Therefore, this article will: outline the current economic relationship between CARICOM and China, and assess its impact; identify the parties’ interests; explain the concept of a comprehensive economic and trade agreement; explore the possible effects of entering into such a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with China; and, lastly, offer considerations on provisions that can be included to ensure the viability of the agreement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.291 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal DiscourseSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207