MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3124909066 · doi:10.11575/sppp.v8i0.42496

What Dependency Issues? Re-examining Assumptions about Canada’s Reliance on the U.S. Export Market

2017· article· en· W3124909066 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Eugene Beaulieu, Yang Song

Notice bibliographique

RevueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Policy and Governance
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDependency (UML)EconomicsBusinessInternational economicsInternational tradeComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

There are things about Canada’s economy that Canadians take for granted: We are unusually reliant on exports; and we are exceptionally reliant, even precariously so, on trade with one particular market, the United States. But despite the fact that we are accustomed to believing such things, to the point where these assumptions inform discussions about developing trade policy, a closer examination reveals a different picture. In reality, while it is true that Canada has a higher ratio of trade to GDP than some of the largest countries in the world, we are not, in fact, an outlier relative to other countries. In fact, our trade-to-GDP ratio is similar to those of France, Great Britain and Australia. Canada’s ratio of exports to GDP is not only unexceptional, it has been steadily declining, almost to the point where soon, rather than debating whether we are too dependent on the U.S. export market, Canadians may find the more urgent policy question to be why our trade openness has been underperforming in international markets. The conventional wisdom that Canada is “too dependent” on the United States for trade has veered many trade policy discussions toward the conclusion that it is essential for Canada to diversify its trade. But this ignores the evolution of trade patterns globally. Throughout the world, open economies are typically concentrated on regional, rather than wider global trade. It is true that more than 80 per cent of Canadian exports went to the United States between 1995 and 2010. But in 2012, 69 per cent of European exports went to other European countries. In Asia, 53 per cent of exports were traded within Asia. The reality is that, across the world, trade is predominantly based around regional value chains, and the North American region where Canada is situated is, of course, heavily dominated by the United States. A comparable economy to ours, such as Australia’s, may appear to have a more diverse trading pattern, because it trades heavily with several Asian countries, but it is still principally reliant on the Asian region. And when comparing intra-regional trade dependency, Australia is actually more dependent on a single regional market than Canada is. Similar assumptions about a lack of diversification in Canada’s export products — that perhaps we are too dependent on, say, energy or automobile exports — also dissolve under closer analysis. Looking at regionallevel data, Canada’s export products are more diversified than Australia’s, Poland’s, Austria’s, Mexico’s, Hong Kong’s, and those of many more countries. Out of 121 countries measured, Canada ranks roughly in the middle, at 51st, on export-product diversity. None of this is to say that there is no benefit to Canada increasing trade diversification; rather, Canada should focus trade policy both on deepening its regional trade ties with the U.S., while also developing, as much as possible, other global export markets. It does, however, reveal that Canada’s attachment to the U.S. is not unusual in the global context, let alone cause for concern. Moreover, it is a recognition of the reality of international trade: That such trading patterns have emerged around regional value chains for good reasons. These are the export decisions made by countless firms to meet the demand decisions of tens of millions of consumers. Assuming that diversification policy could hope to redirect so many sensible market-level decisions would be naïve at best, while contriving policy aimed at interfering with the natural and entirely normal flow of these market-based decisions could only invite grave economic danger.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,114
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,826

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,030
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0160,014
Communication savante0,0130,012
Science ouverte0,0050,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,338
Tête enseignante GPT0,562
Écart entre enseignants0,224 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Même sujetCanadian Policy and Governance→Travaux en français237 207→