Trade Remedy Laws in the United States: Bilateral Grain Trade Disputes with Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agricultural trade between the United States and Canada has been contentious since the inception of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSTA) in 1989, mainly because Canadian exports of wheat and barley to the United States increased significantly, while U.S. exports remain unchanged.Research conducted by many leading agricultural economists indicates that the asymmetric trade flows of wheat and barley between the two countries, caused by differences in trade policies, farm subsidies, and marketing institutions have resulted in several trade disputes between the two countries under the U.S. trade remedy laws.Wheat producers in the United States are increasingly relying on the U.S. trade remedy laws, such as anti-dumping and countervailing duty, which requires injury test prior to an imposition of counter measures to correct a surge in wheat imports from Canada.Although some agricultural economists in the two countries call for a gradual harmonization of trade policies, farm subsidies, and marketing institutions for agricultural products in a globalized world to reduce trade disputes between the two countries, the current trend for seeking relief by trade remedy laws would continue as long as the surge in Canadian wheat exports remain unabated.The United States and Canada are two of the world's largest exporters of grains, wheat and barley in particular, and compete with each other in major foreign markets.'They share a common interest in reducing government interference in world agricultural markets and encouraging free world
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".