MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977100962 · doi:10.7274/kh04dn42658

Making North America

2022· article· en· W6977100962 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationCold warFree trade agreementOrder (exchange)Foreign policyBalance (ability)Free tradeNational security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this dissertation I examine the security motivations that prompted the states of North America to enact free trade agreements (FTAs) in the 1980s and 1990s. Specifically, I analyze the decision of the US and Canadian governments to establish a bilateral FTA in 1989, and the decision of the US and Mexican governments to negotiate a subsequent FTA, which then resulted in the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. I argue that the US and Canada were motivated to establish their 1989 FTA in order to reinforce a military balancing effort that they were engaged in against the Soviet Union; in particular, to counter the Soviets' nuclear arms buildup in the arctic region. Regarding the US and Mexico's FTA negotiating process, I argue that, in the wake of the Cold War, the US sought an FTA with Mexico in order to ensure that Mexico did not ally itself with another foreign power, now that Mexico's Cold War strategy of occupying a diplomatic middle ground between the superpowers was no longer an option. Mexico, conversely, sought an FTA with the US in order 1) to establish greater influence over US foreign policy, and 2) to make Mexico more attractive to the Europeans as a trading partner, with the idea being that, by establishing a Mexican-European FTA, Mexico would then be better able to balance against the US, which was now liberated from the constraints of the Cold War, and hence able to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. This analysis rests upon two hypotheses: 1) that an FTA can serve to reinforce a balancing effort engaged in by states against a threatening, third-party state, and 2) that an FTA can serve to reinforce a bandwagoning strategy, whereby states establish an FTA with a threatening state in order to constrain that threatening state's behavior. These hypotheses draw upon aspects of both neorealist and neoliberal theories of international relations (IR). This argument thus demonstrates a manner in which the two schools of IR theory can not only be reconciled in terms of their theory concepts, but can also be combined to form a more useful theory than other theories which rely strictly upon either realist or liberal tenants. Through the application of this more useful approach, in-turn, the seemingly unlikely claim that the North American FTAs were prompted in-part by security concerns is demonstrated to be valid.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.008

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207