Canada‐style trade deal most likely Brexit scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
▀ All options for the Brexit endgame remain on the table. A free‐trade agreement (FTA) along the lines of the EU's deal with Canada looks like the most likely outcome. The two sides will also need to reach agreements on customs and regulations, with the latter involving the UK compromising on maintaining a high degree of regulatory alignment, to provide a permanent fudge on the Irish border issue. But there is still a sizeable risk of a “no deal” outcome. ▀ We expect a transitional deal to be agreed relatively quickly. The UK has suggested it would prefer a bespoke arrangement, but the EU is unlikely to offer such an option. We expect the UK to remain bound by EU rules during the transition, with the transitional period ending on 31 December 2020. ▀ If the two sides continue to pursue the preferred option of a FTA, it is unlikely to be completed by the end of the transition period. We expect the EU to reject the UK's request for a comprehensive agreement including services and insist on a Canada‐style deal. The Irish border issue means that customs and regulatory agreements would need to accompany such a deal. We place a 40% chance on this outcome. ▀ The question of regulatory alignment and the time required to negotiate a detailed FTA could spin the talks off in one of two opposing directions. If the prime minister is unable to get her party to agree to maintain a high degree of regulatory alignment, the talks could break down. If this occurs, we think it's very unlikely that the UK would honour the phase‐one agreement to maintain regulatory alignment, and we see a 30% chance that the UK walks away from the talks, resulting in a “cliff‐edge” Brexit in 2019. ▀ If the UK accepts the need to maintain regulatory alignment with the EU, it could conclude that joining the EEA and participating in the single market are better than lengthy FTA negotiations, resulting in an inferior deal. But the need to respect the four freedoms means this remains a relatively low probability outcome (20%). Wth Parliament seemingly committed to Brexit, remaining in the EU looks unlikely (10%).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.011 |
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".