Norteamérica o el mundo: el reto para Canadá y México
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author points out that Canada and Mexico have a common problem that lies in both countries. With respect to North America, he studies the position of both countries, their common neighbor and main business partner. Such area looks forward to have a deep economic and security integration with a strong support among business and political elites in all three countries. Nevertheless, there is opposition to it in Canada and Mexico that comes from civil society because it refuses to join the United States in the invasion of Irak. He interrogates about the future of both nations in an international context that privilege unipolarity, called "La pensée unique", and defense against terrorism that force to resituate the continental strategic alliances to enclose within the United States. Besides, in an inward-looking perspective the author looks for the following two answers related to the future options to Canada and Mexico: should Mexicans and Canadians think of their futures primarily in terms of their relationship with the United States as parts of a North American regional bloc in a hostile world, or should we not hedge our risks by examining the implication for each of our countries of the increasingly isolated position of the United States in relation to the rest of the world? Do we need to hunker down defensively or could we prosper with an attitude of greater openness towards the world as a whole?
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".