Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to NAFTA, trade agreements were rarely the subject of widespread public debate, since the content of these agreements was seen as technocratic issues with little relevance to the lives of most people. These conditions changed with the negotiation of NAFTA, which brought together two countries with high wages and relatively high labor standards (Canada and the United States) with Mexico, a country with low wages and policies that historically denied workers basic labor rights. This was the first case of a trade agreement uniting a “Global South” country with “Global North” countries in the same regional trading bloc. As a result, the agreement led to vociferous responses from labor unions and politicians from both the left and right wings of the political spectrum, especially in the United States, concerned about the possible impact on jobs, labor rights, and wages. This chapter provides an overview of the debates on trade that accompanied the negotiation of NAFTA and the content of the labor “side accord,” discusses the impact of these provisions after the implementation of NAFTA, and outlines the new labor provisions that have been included in the renegotiated NAFTA, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The chapter argues that these provisions are much more significant than those found in the NAFTA labor side accord and provide new directions for linking trade to labor 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".