A Comparative Study of the RCEP and the USMCA from the Perspective of International Political Economy: Based on the Analysis of Digital Trade Rulemaking
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reginal Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) are both emerging free trade agreements, covering the major economies in East Asia and North America respectively. After screening, 24 papers were selected to do a comparative study of RCEP and USMCA. The paper applies the interdependence theory and the dependency theory in the field of international political economy to interpret the logic of rulemaking of the two FTAs. For the RCEP, the key is the growing interdependence (with increasing trade volumes and growing economic gains) between ASEAN countries and other member states. In addition, economic complementarity also influences the interdependence between the ASEAN and other states in East Asia, reinforcing their willingness to deepen this relationship. For the USMCA, the key is the dependency relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. This dependency continues to this day due to the untouchable structural power of the United States, and still forces Mexico to submit to the U.S. willingness to set rules for the USMCA. This paper innovatively introduces theories from the field of international political economy to study the rulemaking of the new FTAs, which provides certain directions for future academic research in the related fields.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it