AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTSanchez / THE CONTEXT OF NAFTA Governance, Trade, and the Environment in the Context of NAFTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing importance of ideas and practices of free trade in theworld economy requires a better understanding of the role of trade in creating opportunities for development. This study analyzes new forms of governance created in the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It finds that environmental groups ’ participation in NAFTA’s implementation has declined while market actors have become increasingly empowered. The study finds that 8 years after NAFTA’s passage there are generally diminished expecta-tions that the agreement’s environmental provisions and institutional frameworks will help control negative environmental consequences of increased trade between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. This brings into question NAFTA’s reputation as a “green ” trade agreement. The narrow and technical interpretation of the NAFTA’s provisions has been ori-ented toward avoiding trade barriers rather than understanding and improving the complex interactions between trade, the environment, and development. Due to its environmental provisions, the North American Free Trade Agree-ment (NAFTA) has been praised as a “green ” agreement. Those provisions are a step forward from the minimal references to the environment contained in the
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".