Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since Jan. 1, 1994, the economies of the US, Mexico and Canada have been linked in the North American Free Trade Agreement which facilitated the flow of certain kinds of goods and capital across borders and around the continent, while limiting others. Designed as a strategy for ‘mutual prosperity’ (in Bill Clinton’s words at the inaugural ceremony), NAFTA, and its successor, the USMCA, has been a failure. While untangling the entwined economies could be even more destructive than maintaining the deal, what imaginative possibilities have been foreclosed by the current agreement and how could these be opened back up? This article will engage in grounded speculation: what could an alternative or ‘anti-’ Nafta look like? What would it mean to design for mobility, freedom and abundance? How could a reconfigured agreement allow for and facilitate participation in economic, cultural, social and other kinds of exchanges at all scales, not only in ways that facilitate the participation of massive transnational corporations? What could a model for hemispheric food sovereignty designed for health and sustainability look like?
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".