North American Free Trade Agreement: U.S. Experience With Environment, Labor, and Investment Dispute Settlement Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A briefing report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which went into effect in 1994, was intended to spur trade and investment throughout North America. Separately, the three NAFTA countries--the United States, Canada, and Mexico--negotiated and entered into two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation. The side agreements allow citizens and governments to raise questions about failures to effectively enforce environmental or labor laws in any of the three countries. This can be accomplished through both a submission process and a government-to-government dispute settlement process. NAFTA also provides protections for investors, such as nondiscriminatory treatment and the right to freely transfer funds related to an investment, as well as a mechanism to settle investor-state disputes through the agreement's chapter 11. This report provides information on the institutional structure, principles, process, cases, and outcomes associated with (1) the environmental side agreement's submission process, (2) the labor side agreement's submission process, and (3) NAFTA's investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. This report includes information on fines and trade sanctions under the side agreements, as well as summary date on cases filed under both the side agreements and chapter 11."
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 | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".