MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389943257 · doi:10.25058/1794600x.2258

La fallida reforma eléctrica del gobierno federal y las violaciones flagrantes al capítulo 14 del T-MEC

2023· article· en· W4389943257 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
José Fernando Vázquez Avedillo

Bibliographic record

VenueMisión Jurídica · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBusiness, Innovation, and Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadAustralian Government
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Free Trade Agreement signed between Canada, the United States and Mexico, signed on November 30, 2018, is an international instrument that makes it possible to attract foreign investment for Mexico, a circumstance that translates into the promotion of economic growth and development. This new trade agreement implies compliance with a series of specific rules in order to generate certainty, however, the failed electricity reform proposed by the Mexican government, disrupted such international treaty, particularly in relation to investments that since the 2013 electricity reform have been accumulating in the country, a circumstance that would particularly end up violating the rights of environmental protection as well as competition and free concurrence protected by the Constitution. In essence, this is a work that through the inductive method and a qualitative research approach, will compare Chapter 14 of the T-MEC with the alleged electricity reform proposed by the Executive Branch, and where it will show the lack of legal vision in the development of an initiative that clearly violated human rights and would have significantly affected Mexico's trade relations with the United States and Canada, but also with many other countries with similar investments in the domestic market.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMisión JurídicaSame topicBusiness, Innovation, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207