Human rights at crossroads: North American trade policies and their impact on human rights in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, trade is the engine running the world.Commercial relations drag a plethora of issues that make them more relevant: today, trade is not an isolated interaction, but instead it is connected to issues like environmental matters, political conditions, ethical dilemmas, and human rights concerns that put international trade relations at their most complex state.In such levels of complexity, should The United States and Canada as two of the economic leaders of modern times, become more involved in the internal affairs of their partners or should they play fools in favor of trade relations?Furthermore, as the world's economies turn towards Asia, should they interfere with human rights issues on these countries or should they just look away?Business is not just business, but more likely countries will put trade first and human rights second.The U.S and Canada have done something similar in their past relations with Indonesia, a country in Southeast Asia with a very interesting history, a tumultuous record of political stability, and a stained record on human rights.Indonesia is one of the biggest economies in Asia, and along with neighbors like Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines, have all set an important growth trend for the economies in the region, plus, these countries founded ASEAN 1 , and are all very important for Canada's international trade in Asia -they are behind the Big Three, the Asian Tigers, and Australia 2 , both as exports and imports markets.The four aforementioned countries are also very relevant for The United States'
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".