MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499844871

Services Trade within Canada and the European Union: What to They Have in Common?

2004· preprint· en· W1499844871 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lejour, Jan-Willem de Paiva Verheijden

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2004
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrade in servicesEuropean unionGravity model of tradeGoods and servicesSingle marketInternational tradeBilateral tradeTrade barrierInternational economicsInternational free trade agreementProduct (mathematics)Economic integrationTrade creationGravity equationBusinessCustoms unionFree tradeTrade diversionEconomicsGeographyEconomyChina
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explains bilateral services trade using a gravity equation and compares the results with trade in goods. We analyse bilateral trade between the provinces of Canada and between the member states of the European Union. We conclude that the gravity equation explains the variability in services trade very well: market size of the exporting and importing regions and distance are the most important explanatory variables. On average, distance is a less hindrance for services trade than for goods trade. Differences in languages and the regulation of product markets hamper services and goods trade in Europe significantly. Trade in services is also hampered by regulation in the importing country, but this is not true for goods. Services trade within Canada is twice as high as within Europe measured as share of GDP. Tentative estimates suggest that intra-EU services trade could be much higher if the internal market would function like the Canadian services market.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207