The institutionalisation of regional integration in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current studies of regional integration in North America claim that this process is limited to the entering of intergovernmental agreements that aim to expand and enhance crossborder flows of goods and capitals between Mexico, Canada and the US. Such studies claim that the political effects of the process on nation-states are limited and constrained by the decisions of the national governments. \n \nIn contrast, this thesis argues that the actions of transnational actors have increased the policy interdependence between the three countries in the arenas of environmental protection, labour cooperation and protection of foreign direct investment. Transnational \nactors have used, applied and interpreted the rules originally created by the intergovernmental agreements –NAFTA, NAAEC, BECA and NAALC– and have subsequently demanded additional and improved rules. Regional institutions have in turn responded to these demands by supplying new and improved regional rules. In doing so, transnational actors and regional institutions have furthered the policy interdependence between the three countries. \n \nThis phenomenon, known in other contexts as institutionalisation, demonstrates that the process of regional integration in North America is more substantial than previous studies claim. In addition, it illustrates the relevance of the theories of Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Supranational Governance to the analysis of the emergence and development of the North American integration process.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".