verbatim Comments to House of Commons Foreign Affairs and International Trade Subcommittee on International Trade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thank you for the opportunity to comment today on the government’semerging markets strategy. I’ll focus on one of the questions asked in theterms of reference: Should Canada pursue more free trade agreements? In my view, most bilateral free trade accords are likely to result in only marginal and temporary gains for Canada, while requiring large amounts of government resources. Such agreements would further complicate the global trading system in which Canada has a large stake, and they could divert Canadian attention from more important priorities. Having said that, if policymakers are determined to proceed with free trade accords, a free trade agreement may be worth considering if Canada can interest a large, emerging market in a genuinely comprehensive accord, as long as policymakers have realistic expectations of its effects and don’t lose sight of this country’s paramount North American interests. Why the cautionary note about free trade accords? The inescapable fact is that this country’s economic relationships are overwhelmingly in North America. Current trade and investment with potential partner economies — including
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.045 |
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".