Trade Dilemma of Global Hegemony: Analyzing the Transition in US Trade Policy from Globalization Deals to Hybrid Deals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis framework of the trade dilemma faced by global hegemony. It argues that maintaining global hegemony and addressing domestic conflicts simultaneously is a challenging task. Since the 1980s, the United States has prioritized the expansion of transnational capital, often at the expense of domestic vulnerable industries and the interests of low-skilled workers. This unbalanced development has led to intensified social contradictions within the United States. To resolve these conflicts, the US has shifted from reciprocal globalization deals to self-interested hybrid deals, aiming to uphold the interests of transnational capital while also addressing the concerns of workers. The negotiation experiences of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) demonstrate this mode of the US trade policy. While this strategy may repair the domestic political foundation, it leads to new challenges for the US, such as discontent and resistance from the international community, or encountering difficulties in promoting cooperation with US trading partners. These challenges will pose a threat to the long-term stability of the international economic order.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".