MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7025039083

Trade Liberalization Under NAFTA - Report Card on Agriculture

2017· article· en· W7025039083 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNeutrino Physics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsAgricultureFree tradeLiberalizationNegotiationTrade barrierFree trade agreementPrincipal (computer security)Service (business)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NAFTA -Report Card on Agriculturethe NAFTA negotiations in agriculture was that Mexico, the United States and Canada are complementary to a large extent in overall agricultural production.He concluded that evidence after five years of implementation seems to confirm that.Thomas Hertel, a Purdue University trade analyst, presented results of a quantitative study that confirmed Rosenzweig's observation.He found a strong increase in the intensity of farm and food exports from the NAFTA member countries to NAFTA as a whole since the mid-1980s.This finding provides strong evidence of falling transactions costs and increasing integration within the North American market.The recent free trade agreements have most certainly played an important role in this process.Michele Veeman, a noted trade analyst from the University of Alberta, concluded that NAFTA has been very effective as a vehicle to promote trade liberalization and has contributed to reducing trade disputes.She summed up the NAFTA report card as making good progress but requiring extra effort to keep on working for even better achievements.A U.S.-Canadian team of government analysts, Mary Burfisher, Terry Norman and Renée Schwartz described the dispute resolution instruments that exist in the agri-food industry.They concluded that informal linkages among participants in the NAFTA countries offer the greatest opportunity to prevent misunderstandings from occurring and developing into sensitive, high-level disputes that require formal settings to be resolved.They observed that by fostering greater communication among parties engaged in trade, informal mechanisms might help prevent trade disputes from occurring.Informal discussions of the type represented by these workshops were concluded to be critically important to both preventing and settling disputes.When they work, they are more effective and less costly than formal government settlement mechanisms.Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner from UC-Davis, and Richard Gray from the University of Saskatchewan, noted that when U.S. farmers look North, they cannot help but suspect some trade effects of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB).They also observed a growing awareness that termination of the CWB's monopoly position might increase, rather than reduce, grain flows into the United States.This is what happened when Canada's western grain transportation sub-vii tions was the path breaking agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, which provided a blueprint for the Uruguay Round and NAFTA agreements on this issue.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicNeutrino Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207