MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404165221 · doi:10.1142/s237774002450012x

Navigating U.S.-China Trade War: Mexico’s Economic Diplomacy in Perspective

2024· article· en· W4404165221 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María Esther Morales-Fajardo, Marcela Franzoni

Bibliographic record

VenueChina Quarterly of International Strategic Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations in Latin America
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiplomacyPerspective (graphical)ChinaEconomic diplomacyPolitical scienceTrade warInternational tradeEconomyEconomic historyEconomicsArtPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China’s growing involvement in trade and foreign investments across Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has impacted regional countries’ relations with the United States, the traditionally dominant power. In the case of Mexico, China is expanding its presence in the Mexican economy, which could either strengthen or complicate the Mexico-U.S. relationship. The paper aims to examine the impact of China’s role in the Mexican economy within the framework of Mexico-U.S. Ties and the U.S.-China trade war. It argues that the trade war augments Mexico’s participation in the U.S. market through the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The empirical analysis demonstrates that Mexico has leveraged the U.S.-China trade war under the new rules established by the USMCA. The new rules of origin and labor provisions give Mexico a greater advantage in accessing the U.S. market and enhance the country’s appeal to foreign companies for nearshoring, despite the asymmetrical nature of Mexico-U.S. relations. Meanwhile, rather than hindering Mexico-China trade, the prohibition stipulated in the USMCA against signing a trade agreement with a non-market economy has helped expand trade links between the two countries.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChina Quarterly of International Strategic StudiesSame topicInternational Relations in Latin AmericaFrench-language works237,207