MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386047351 · doi:10.1177/07388942231195302

The politics of non-membership: How exclusion from international institutions shapes international relations

2023· article· en· W4386047351 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.

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

VenueConflict Management and Peace Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de MontréalFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureMcGill University
KeywordsPoliticsArgument (complex analysis)General partnershipVotingInternational tradeInternational relationsPolitical sciencePolitical economyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preferential trade agreements (PTAs) are generally understood to promote political cooperation between members. I argue that institutional exclusion can damage political cooperation between members and non-members. Preferential trade agreements reflect strategic considerations, enabling countries to promote new trade norms, strengthen diplomatic networks, and redirect commercial flows to allies. Excluded countries are denied these benefits and may possibly be targeted by members. Thus, excluding PTAs may be perceived as threats. The record of the Trans-Pacific Partnership illustrates the theory. Statistical analysis of the near-universe of PTAs and countries’ voting affinities in the United Nations General Assembly supports the argument.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.176 · 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