Working Draft- Please Do Not Quote The Future of Canada-Mexico Relations: Thinking outside the federal box
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2 The past four years have been a testing and difficult period for the North American partnership. The stresses and tensions brought on by the US new security concerns and the war on terrorism have made it near impossible for a common agenda to emerge that is of mutual benefit to all three partners. The huge differences that have emerged in the worldviews of the NAFTA countries and the priorities they pursue have meant that significant progress on North American integration has been unattainable. This is not to say that no new agreements have been negotiated: on the contrary there have been advances, most notably in the area of borders and business integration. But it would be fair to say that the prospect of a new era of integration that satisfies all three countries is as distant today as it has ever been. The three governments face an array of challenges before they can realistically talk of a “NAFTA plus”. First they must await a “normalization ” in US relations with the world in general and with its allies in particular, and a subsequent change in the US foreign policy agenda. Second, public opinion in both Canada and Mexico must come to terms with a changed United States and be ready to get closer. Third, significant economic disparities, among the three
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.153 | 0.029 |
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".