Inclusion of gender and labour standards in preferential trade agreements: evidence from North American and Canada-Chile agreements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses the causes of the incorporation of gender provisions into preferential trade agreements (PTAs), based an analysis of the reasons for the inclusion of both labour and gender provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and in the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA).Drawing upon feminist and constructivist analysis, it argues for the importance of ideational factors such as policy emulation, social learning, the formation of transnational advocacy networks (TANs), as well as the role of Global South actors.Gender provisions often contain neoliberal elements that promote female entrepreneurship rather than more transformational approaches.The comparison of the USMCA and the CCFTA shows that the inclusion of stronger gender provisions in labour chapters (as in the USMCA) may be a more effective way to promote the interests of vulnerable workers than the inclusion of a gender chapter.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it