Bibliographic record
Abstract
On November 17, 1938, Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, after four years of discussion and manoeuvre, signed two wide–ranging and interlocking trade agreements. A few large elements dominated the talks. The Americans wanted to breach the walls of the British imperial preferential tariff system. The British were anxious to retain markets and political support in the British dominions and the Baltic, while protecting their domestic agriculture and improving political relations with the United States. Canada, whose acquiescence and co–operation were necessitated by the pre–existing network of trade agreements, hoped to win new export markets, to retain old ones, and to achieve international political tranquility through economic means. Although the negotiations began with a mixture of lofty and ignoble motives, in the end the latter predominated. The authors have drawn on archival and statistical materials in all three countries to provide a clear and detailed account of the economic context of the mid–1930s, the process of negotiations, the issues, and the political and economic significance, both then and now, of the final agreements. Their work is a valuable case–study of the problems that face any country that tries to negotiate freer trade. It is therefore full of contemporary resonance and relevance, and will be of interest to students of and specialists in modern history (European, British, and North American), international relations, and international economic policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".