MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385761665 · doi:10.1111/lamp.12310

Rethinking the Caribbean Basin Initiative: A case study of US foreign policy toward the Caribbean

2023· article· en· W4385761665 on OpenAlex
Emanuel Quashie

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueLatin American Policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsLatin AmericansCaribbean regionDoctrineStructural basinSalientPacific basinEconomyPolitical scienceCaribbean islandGeographyDevelopment economicsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An analysis of the history of US–Latin America and Caribbean relations shows that the Monroe Doctrine has been revamped through the Caribbean Basin Initiative. This article provides a concise overview of the Initiative. Then, we report empirical findings from a qualitative study conducted in the Caribbean, which discusses the most salient problems associated with the Initiative. The findings show that Caribbean Basin Initiative‐related problems stem mostly from the fact that it is a goods‐only agreement; moreover, the initiative's rules of origin, unilateral nature, and uncertainty are exacerbated by the fact that most beneficiaries are service‐oriented economies, they suffer from a supply constraint, and they lack the competitive edge with larger economies that export similar goods to the United States. These problems can be ameliorated through a rethinking of the Caribbean Basin Initiative.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.292 · 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