The export competitiveness of the tuna industry in Thailand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Thailand dominates world exports of canned tuna with a market share of around 40 percent which is at least four times higher than any other exporter. The aim of this paper is to examine the export competitiveness of the canned tuna export industry in Thailand for 1996‐2006. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a revealed comparative advantage (RCA) approach and calculates RCA indices for both major exporters in the world market and competitors in individual export markets. Findings Thailand has comparative advantages in all major export markets; these have remained stable in the USA, the Middle East, Japan and Canada but have fallen substantially in Australia. Practical implications First, Thailand urgently needs to consider tuna farming. Second, smaller processing and fishing companies should merge to increase profit margins and market share. Third, Thailand should engage in effective trade negotiations with importers. Fourth, stock management and conservation could be used to support the industry. It is unlikely that current levels of comparative advantage can be maintained because of import tariffs, rules of origin, labour shortages and increasing unskilled labour costs. Social implications Tuna management and conservation in Thailand could be used to support the sustainability of the industry. Originality/value By contrast to Kijboonchoo and Kalayanakupt who find that Thailand's market share declined between 1987‐1998 and revealed comparative advantage fell, these results show that this declining trend has since been arrested.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it