The Broken North American Consensus. Mexico–US–Canada Relations in the Trump Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La idea de América del Norte, aunque imperfecta y frágil, también se ha fundamentado en un consenso que ha facilitado las interacciones, particularmente en el ámbito comercial, entre Canadá, México y Estados Unidos. Este ensayo analiza cómo Estados Unidos, Canadá y México han construido un sentido compartido de destino, intereses y valores a través del entendimiento mutuo, creando así el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN). El trabajo se divide en tres secciones: la primera explora brevemente cómo los esfuerzos de cooperación durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial fomentaron lazos más estrechos entre Estados Unidos y sus vecinos, sentando las bases de un incipiente sentido de América del Norte como región; la segunda revisa las ideas fundamentales que dieron forma al consenso norteamericano durante la era del TLCAN, y la sección final destaca los momentos en los que este consenso se ha roto y se encuentra en proceso de redefinición.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".