Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Under the Nafta and other Regional Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the avenues taken by the USA since the mid-1980s to include intellectual property in international trade law, besides the GATT/TRIPS approach and unilateral trade measures, has been the conclusion of bilateral and regional trade agreements on the basis of its Trade Act 1988. The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement of 1988 was the second bilateral agreement in a series of many to follow. Only some months after the USA and Mexico had decided to pursue a free trade agreement (FTA), Canada showed interest in participating in negotiations with a view towards a trilateral agreement. Within fourteen months between 1991 and 1992, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was successfully negotiated among the three countries; it entered into force on 1 January 1994. It was based on the Canada–US FTA but went beyond it in many areas, in particular in intellectual property where the bilateral agreement had only included a provision on cable retransmission. NAFTA was concluded not least to build a counterpart to the perceived emergence of trade blocs in Europe and Asia. It created a free trade area of around 370 million inhabitants and aimed at enhanced trade liberalization and better access to the respective markets. Major parts of the NAFTA deal with the reduction or abolition of tariffs and other trade barriers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.005 |
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".