Running on Empty in Central America? Canadian, Mexican and US Integrative Efforts, by Imtiaz Hussain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The year 2001 is a benchmark in North American regional history not only because it puts security issues at the top of the agenda but because it offers a valuable lesson in a topic that is becoming increasingly relevant in a more and more competitive world: regional integration.Concerned with this matter, Dr. Imtiaz Hussain presents a meticulous inves ti gation on Canadian, Mex ican and U.S. efforts to integrate with the Central American region.The book begins by asking: Why was the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) signed in record time while Canada's Central American Four Free Trade Agre ement (CAF4TA) was a sonorous failure and Mexico's Puebla-Panama Plan is still struggling to avoid the same fate?Dr. Hussain uses a hybrid model that borrows from several prominent scholars of international negotiations (Fen Osler Hampson, Richard Feinberg, and Mark Habeeb, among others) to conclude that the relative success or failure of each of the North Amer ican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners' efforts depended as much on the ends as on the means.With this in mind, the book goes through every single aspect of the negotiations, departing from the pre-pre-negotiating process and arriving at the ratification stage, not without first observing internal and external dynamics, comparing NAFTA partners' experiences, contrasting country-specific negotiating styles and exploring some of the most relevant (and thorny) issues, like agriculture, telecommunications, textiles, the environment and labor.This comprehensive investigation shows the reader several situations that determined the result of each of the negotiations.It beco mes clear that Canada's excessive focus on principles rather than interests constrained its negotiating room.In dealing with labor and environmental concerns, it simply was not as flexible as its NAFTA counterparts.In turn,
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".