Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 2008, the Regional Economic Studies Programme of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) and the Singapore office of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada organised a forum on 'Regional Economic Integration - ASEAN and Canadian Perspectives'. The forum concluded that fundamentally the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were two different kinds of agreements. First, while NAFTA focused entirely on trade and investments, the scope of AFTA was much broader, going beyond issues of trade and investments alone. Secondly, NAFTA was a lightly institutionalized regional trade agreement. There was no formal policy of institutional or policy development, and it lacked legislative instruments. Although ASEAN had a secretariat, its regional institutions remained weak in comparison to those of the European Union. Thirdly, the dispute-settlement mechanism in ASEAN was different from that of NAFTA. The ASEAN provisions were scattered over a number of documents and covered both economic (trade and investment) issues and other disputes (e.g., political or territorial), while NAFTA provisions were contained in a single document and could be applied only to matters related to trade and investments. Finally, although many studies presented trade liberalisation as a win-win proposition, the distribution of costs and benefits was mostly uneven. In the case of Canada, short-run gains in efficiency from expanded trade could be identified, but it was harder to determine longer-term dynamic gains. On the other hand, in the case of ASEAN, it was still grappling with the issue of the development divide, especially since the admission of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam into the group
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.148 | 0.043 |
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".