Bibliographic record
Abstract
Politics is not just about interests; it’s also about ideas. This book is about the peculiar ideas that gave us the global economy we have today. These ideas helped hold together coalitions of elites who pushed through the policies and international agreements that made globalization happen. Without these coalitions, free traders would have struggled to get their way, given the public’s doubts and the frequent civil society opposition to globalization. The ideas motivating free traders bear striking similarities to the mercantilist ideology that dominated economic thinking in early modern Europe. Surprisingly, then, ideas that economists rejected long ago remain central to international economic policymaking today. Maybe even more surprisingly, scholars have not noticed the contradiction; instead, many have exaggerated globalization’s legitimacy by saying its rise since the 1980s has been based on mainstream academic economics. The book tells the story of globalization from the perspective of North America in the late twentieth century. It uses case studies of how Canada, Mexico, and the United States proposed, negotiated, and ratified two free trade agreements that substantially opened and integrated their economies. On the basis of more than a hundred interviews and analyses of materials from archives in all three countries, the book provides a new history of the political origins of the bilateral Canada-US and the trilateral North American Free Trade Agreements (CUFTA and NAFTA). Building on prior work in sociology, political science, economics, and history, this comparative-historical analysis examines the rise of globalization in the sense of growing international trade and investment, plus states’ adoption of new commitments in a range of other areas addressed by recent trade agreements. These include most notably, and controversially, investor and intellectual property rights.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.617 | 0.431 |
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".