Thirty-nine years of U.S. wood furniture importing: Sources and products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we analyze changes in United States imports of wood furniture over the 39-year period from 1972 to 2010. In 1972, Canada and the former Yugoslavia were the most important sources of imported wood furniture, and Europe accounted for nearly 60 percent of total imports. Shipments of low-cost wood furniture from Taiwan started to increase in the 1970s, and by 1978, Taiwan was the most important source of imported wood furniture. Overall, low-cost sources in Asia displaced Europe in 1987. Taiwan continued to be the most important source until 1994. Canada became the most important source of imported wood furniture from 1994 to 2000 as the Canadian dollar declined in value against the United States dollar. In 2001, China became the most important source of wood furniture imports. More recently furniture imports from an emerging source, Vietnam, have increased dramatically. One reason why Asian manufacturers have been so successful in the U.S. market has been that furniture consumers were influenced mainly by price. By contrast, success in some segments of the U.S.-based furniture industry indicates that models enabling consumers to make styling and pricing decisions also can be competitive.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".