Five Public Concerns Represented by Environmental Groups in the Development of Regional Free Trade Agreements: A Case Study of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores how the public discourse surrounding the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) negotiations affected the formulation of the free trade agreement (FTA). More specifically, the project set out to determine if North American environmental groups successfully had public concerns addressed and codified in the Environment chapter of the USMCA. By analyzing official statements made in press releases by seventeen prominent Environmental groups operating in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, the thesis provides an account of the concerns related to liberalized regional trade prior to the USMCA’s ratification in 2020. The analysis of organization statements regarding public health, climate change mitigation, corporate social responsibility, transparency and public participation, and enforcement finds a correlation between these concerns and their appearance in the USMCA text, however analysis of the agreement’s Environment chapter finds that the public concerns included in the research are vaguely contextualized, given no framework for redress, and show little more than merely being recognized in the USMCA. While the agreement’s language does reflect the salient cultural conversations around environmental affairs, and while the environmental organizations studied represented the issues well, the analysis cannot support that environmentalist groups directly affected their incorporation into the trilateral free-trade 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".