Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hardly anyone expects a free trade agreement to include provisions on labor-related matters. Yet, the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), includes some of the strongest labor-related provisions of any agreement yet. The USMCA requires the parties to comply with international labor rights, prohibits trade in goods from forced labor, addresses violence and gender discrimination in the workplace, and obligates Mexico to guarantee worker representation on collective bargaining. It also goes as far as providing a Labor Response Mechanism (LRM), which empowers workers to complain over noncompliance of the accord’s provisions. It also designates labor attachés in U.S. missions in Mexico to monitor compliance with the agreement. This chapter discusses two cases, GM Silao and Tridomex, which have already been filed under these innovative provisions. These provisions have satisfied many of the more protectionist impulses in U.S. labor. Moreover, and discussed separately in this chapter, the USMCA, much as NAFTA did, includes a powerful visa—the TN visa—designed to facilitate employment in the U.S. for Mexican and Canadian citizens in specified professions. While TN use has grown considerably, it still constitutes a very small percentage of the total work visas granted in the U.S. Yet, this labor-related provision constitutes an important and expandable path to integrate labor markets in a lawful and orderly way. TN visa provisions, it is argued, could provide a path to labor market integration in the future, addressing some of the irregular and unlawful labor market integration present. The year 2026, when the agreement will be reviewed, is a key opportunity to expand this visa and place the two countries’ labor markets on a path of greater integration, although strong opposition should be expected in certain sectors within the U.S.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".