MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W348126451

Globalization, Integration, and Cross-Border Relations in the Metropolitan Area of Detroit (USA) and Windsor (Canada)

2000· article· en· W348126451 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

VenueInternational journal of economic development · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobalizationCompetition (biology)InterdependenceInternational tradeEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)Free tradePoliticsEconomic integrationRegional integrationMetropolitan areaPolitical scienceMarket economyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Focusing on one aspect of international relations, cross-border relations this paper examines the Ontario-Michigan border region at Detroit. It addresses the following question: Is there a history of trade relations that leads to functional interdependencies? Does free trade, particularly since the Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement, lead, by a process of functional interdependency, to greater cross-border linkages? Moreover, do politics and institutions mediate this process and if so how? The findings in this paper suggest that since inception the Canadian-American border region at Detroit has developed from functional interdependencies. It is argued, however, that the free trade environment leads local actors to develop resolute economic development strategies. As central and provincial/state levels of government download policy areas, constraints are greater for local level governments. Central states lose influence but rely on competition to limit the policy choices of local government. Co-operative mechanisms, whether formal or informal, tend to give in to market competition, thus limiting the mediation of free trade by politics and institutions. Introduction Economic globalisation and continental integration, in Europe and North America, have motivated local/regional elites to become actors in global economic competition. Since the 1970s, analysts noticed the increasing international activity of sub-national level government, which because of continental integration, global economic change, and weaker national state policies, is motivated to gain greater autonomy from national government (Duchacek et al. 1988). The vulnerability of local constituencies to market forces and to public or private international organisations leads them to take several directions in order to be able to exert influence in return. First, local constituencies attempt to become less dependent on state transfers of revenue, having realised that these transfers are not so reliable (Fry 1998, 57). Second, they try to diversify their economic base to protect and expand their tax base. Because they are held accountable in electoral periods for local economic wealth and job creation, local political actors are becoming more active in order to protect their electoral base, gain political prestige and respond to local needs (Keating 1988, 1990, 1993; Batik 1991; Foster 1991). Cities not only pressure the traditional inter-governmental channels of influence on central government policy-making, but, at the same time, they are becoming primary actors in the area of international economy, trade and investment. Focusing on one aspect of international relations, cross-border relations (Duchacek 1998, 12-13), this paper, which results from a larger comparative research project on cross-border relations in Europe and North America, addresses the following two question: Does free trade lead by a process of functional interdependency, to cross-border linkages? Do politics and institutions--particularly local level institutions--mediate this process and, if so, how? First, a review of the cross-border literature is presented in this paper. It leads to the identification of four determinants of cross-border linkages: (1) market forces, which may lead to relations of functional co-operation or to competition across border; (2) a supranational organisation that may also foster cross-border co-operation--the European Commission, for instance, is key to the development of cross-border co-operation programs, which have resulted in hundreds of cross-border projects between local and national authorities and the European Commission; (2) national states may also be a key determinant because they may control flows across borders; finally, (3) the strategies of local authorities, which may co-operate or compete across borders to enhance their autonomy and resources. In the second part of this paper, these determinants are tested with reference to the Ontario-Michigan border region. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.342 · 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