Economic integration of developing countries and regionalism in Latin America and the Caribbean : prospects for a free trade area of the Americas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After promoting in the 1970s a more egalitarian international trade system, developing countries abandoned the prospects of finding an alternative route to their development and have massively participated in the Uruguay Round. Results have been disappointing, and developing countries, particularly in the Latin American-Caribbean (LAC) region, are now also pursuing economic integration at the regional level. The 1990s have in fact been characterised by the general revival of regionalism, a trend considered by many legal scholars and economists as dangerous for multilateralism. The debate is ongoing, and the WTO is currently attempting to better monitor the impacts of regionalism. In any case, regional integration agreements (RIAs) are now present in all parts of the world, and developing countries seem to consider that such arrangements offer promising opportunities than lack in multilateral agreements. More particularly, LAC countries are now pursuing economic integration at the bilateral, subregional, regional and even hemispheric level with the current negotiations for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). But the creation of a FTAA faces many obstacles, caused by wide disparities in the level of economic development within the region and the incredible variety of existing RIAs throughout the Hemisphere. And it remains to be seen if equity and social concerns will be better reflected in a regional agreement than at the multilateral level.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".