MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414720361 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-95816-8_2

Contentious Trade Politics in the USMCA Protest Cycle: Rethinking Transnational Activism in North America

2025· book-chapter· en· W4414720361 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey Ayres

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational political economy series · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsState (computer science)Face (sociological concept)Free trade agreementPsychological resilienceSocial activismTrade agreementGlobalization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

North America has been the site for three successive protest cycles revolving around the politics of international trade over the past four decades, including the Canada–United States Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and most recently the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). This chapter analyzes transnational activism that challenged the USMCA, documenting ways that activists carved out space for different forms of cross-border advocacy and collaboration in this third North American trade protest cycle. Applying concepts from Tarrow’s “new transnational activism,” two main arguments are advanced: (1) that actors from Canada, the United States, and the Mexico did not stand helplessly by while the USMCA was negotiated and implemented, but rather engaged in protest to secure more favorable outcomes in interactions with state authorities (material, symbolic, and/or emotional); and (2) that the organizations and groups involved demonstrated social resilience in an age of insecurity and neoliberal crisis, sustaining and advancing their well-being in the face of challenges to their economic or symbolic status through transnational activism.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational political economy seriesSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207