NAFTA and Its Twenty-Year Effect on Immigration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
celebrated its twenty-year anniversary.'NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994, and created a free trade zone between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. 2 NAFTA governs trade occurring between the participating countries, including the acquisitions of goods, constructions and services.3 When first proposed, NAFTA was predicted by many to serve as a quick-fix for illegal immigration occurring at the Mexican-United States border. 4 Many supporters of NAFTA predicted Mexico's economy to experience significant growth after NAFTA's implementation, including the creation and expansion of jobs and industries within Mexico. 5 Those NAFTA proponents predicted that this economic growth would improve the lives of many Mexican workers, thus reducing their incentive for migration to the United States. 6 When drafting NAFTA and predicting its effect on U.S. immigration, different assumptions came into play regarding how the participating countries and citizens would react to NAFTA's implementation. 7 But those assumptions, including assumptions about the way the Mexican government would behave and the way its markets would respond, proved contrary to prediction. 8 In fact, in the twenty years since NAFIrA was implemented, we have seen quite the opposite effect.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it