Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to provide a review of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). However, in order to understand the NAFTA it is necessary to understand the history of its negotiation and its relationship with the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSTA) and the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The CUSTA negotiations began first, in April 1986. At that time Canada realized that access to its most important trading partner was at risk as a result of protectionist forces in the United States (Warley and Barichello). One manifestation of Canada’s problem was the United States aggressive use of administered protection. Canada’s goal heading into the negotiations was to secure and improve market access to its most important trading partner, thereby obtaining preferred access to the giant United States market. For the United States, the negotiation of the CUSTA signalled to the rest of the world that it was willing to consider regional trade agreements, given what appeared to be a stalemate in launching the next round of multilateral negotiations. The multilateral negotiations finally began in the fall of 1986 and didn’t conclude until December 1993.1 Hence, the negotiation of both the CUSTA and the NAFTA overlapped the multilateral negotiations whose provisions came into effect on January 1, 1995.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.438 | 0.305 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".