MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401569711 · doi:10.1080/01495933.2024.2383151

Amigo shoring (1940): Washington’s first experiment with “friend shoring” and what it tells us about geo-economic strategy

2024· article· en· W4401569711 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Strategy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShoringAutocracyContext (archaeology)Relevance (law)OutsourcingPolitical scienceOffshoringLatin AmericansPolitical economyEconomySociologyLawEconomicsHistoryPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been an intensifying debate lately within America’s circle of allies regarding the merits of “de-risking” the economic relations they conduct with autocratic great powers. Sometimes this debate makes explicit appeal to the novel name of “friend shoring.” The name may be new, but what it represents – namely an American (and allied) desire to minimize security problems stemming from economic ­interdependence – can be dated back to the middle of 1940, with the short-lived Inter-American Trading Corporation (IATC). This bold initiative was the first great instantiation of friend shoring in US foreign policy, and was focused upon the Latin American republics to the southward. This article’s purpose is to describe and analyze, in theoretical and empirical context, that early, unsuccessful, instance of friend shoring, and to suggest ways in which the IATC experience might be considered of relevance to the contemporary debate over the security consequences of interdependence.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.310 · 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