Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is not only a book for international lawyers. International relations scholars and economists will find it a useful thought-provoking critical analysis on how to understand the functionality of regional trade regimes in the Global South. This monograph is the first of its kind to provide an innovative account of four regional trade agreements (RTAs) – that is, the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and the United States–Mexico–Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA) – from the prism of normative beliefs and interests. This book argues that while there has been immense enthusiasm amongst countries in the Global South to create RTAs, the enthusiasm has not been translated into concerted efforts to make the RTAs work as envisaged. RTAs in the Global South are largely void of concreteness. This book reflects on how normative beliefs and interests inform inter-state relations and, thereby, the law of regional economic community. In so doing, we argue that the idea of prosperity underpinning RTAs as they currently exist is more of a mirage than reality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.431 | 0.265 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".