MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2021· article· en· W3208439753 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
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