NAFTA - USA, Canada, Mexico: Have strategic approaches of member countries changed during 15 years of its existence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the thesis is to determine whether NAFTA filled original expenctations of its member countries and most importantly, how have their strategic approaches to this Agreement changed. The secondary objective is to examine how the integration could evolve into the future and if there is a chance of achieving higher degrees of integration. The thesis is divided into three main parts. The first part is devoted to regionalism on the North American continent and the gradual emergence of mutual ties between Canada, USA and Mexico. It is devoted as well to the circumstances under which NAFTA was established and to motives of individual countries to enter into this integration. The largest and the most important part is the second chapter, in which are outlined basic provisions of the agreement, then described the results of NAFTA as a whole, and finally there is analyzed development of individual member economies under the influence of NAFTA. The content of the final third chapter are main present problems in connection with NAFTA, there are also outlined possible directions for the future development of integration and potential of its further enlargement and deepening.The last section deals with the question if the strategic approaches of member countries of NAFTA have changed after fifteen years of its existence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".