The Case for Strengthening Transatlantic Economic Ties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British-North American Committee The British-North American Committee (BNAC) is a group of leaders from business, labor, and academia in the United King-dom, the United States, and Canada committed to harmonious, constructive relations among the three countries and their citi-zens. It meets regularly to discuss issues of common concern with invited experts and senior policymakers in an off-the-record set-ting, and its regular research and publishing program seeks to discover and promote consideration of solutions to current and emerging problems. The BNAC is supportive of economic liber-alization and political cooperation on a broad international basis, and believes that close personal ties and cooperation among lead-ers from various spheres in the three countries will continue to play a special role in promoting constructive approaches to com-mon challenges. The Committee is sponsored by three nonprofit research organizations — the British-North American Research Associa-
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 | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.003 |
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".