NAFTA: Will it ever have an EU profile? Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 7 No. 3 April 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Introduction]. Based on the experiences of regionalization and integration processes, this paper identifies the main transformations North America has undergone as a result of the implementation of NAFTA. The main argument is that the operation of NAFTA has set in motion a process of regionalization in North America and gradually an increasing number of policies encompass a regional dimension. In such process, the pivotal actor is the United States, while Canada and Mexico are reactive partners who seek to defend their domestic interests as well as accommodate themselves in the regional dynamic led by the United States. The emerging regionalism in North America reflects that NAFTA has accomplished some of its goals. Nonetheless, there is an ongoing discussion with regard to the expanded agenda of the region and several proposals have been brought to the academic and political debate. In this regard, five main sections are considered to asses the regionalization of North America. The first introduces some analytical elements about the regionalization in North America; the second shows perceptions of public opinion with regard to the regional agenda; the third refers to the effects of NAFTA, while the fourth evaluates the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SSP) Summits. The fifth presents the case of alternative models for the future of NAFTA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.009 |
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".