MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100087605

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

2014· article· en· W7100087605 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Automotive industryProduct (mathematics)Free trade agreementEconomies of scaleScale (ratio)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automotive production-relocation in the NAFTA region after the 2008 crisis is analyzed at different levels, including automobile unit-production changes in the regions within a Country, at the assembly-plant level and in the product portfolio. We compare production for two different years: 2007, when the crisis began and 2011 when the consequences could be observed. Based on information relative to where plants are located, year of establishment, firm ownership and production, we defined five regions: four in the US and Mexico and one in Canada. These regions were classified as “traditional ” or “emergent ” spaces. Results show that the age of each assembly plant was not a factor for restructuring. Traditional spaces in Mexico were the most favored, while in the USA traditional spaces were adversely affected. In the period under study, Canada decreased production by 400 thousand automobile units but still remained as the country with the best Economies of Scale in both years, manufacturing cars with high added-value: Canada was the only country that launched more new models than it stopped manufacturing. Mexico increased the average production per assembly plant during the crisis years, although it did not improve in Economies of Scale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.152 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal trade and economics→French-language works237,207→