MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022900638 · doi:10.1504/ijtgm.2015.067972

Gravity model by panel data approach: empirical evidence from Nigeria

2015· article· en· W2022900638 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shehu Usman Rano Aliyu, Sani Bawa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Trade and Global Markets · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravity model of tradeEconomicsPanel dataFactor endowmentBilateral tradeGravity equationEndowmentInternational economicsEmpirical evidenceIndex (typography)International tradeFixed effects modelGeographical distanceEconometricsComparative advantageGeographyChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gravity trade model continues to be coveted for analysis of determinants of trade flows despite its lack of theoretical foundations. The main aim of the paper is to assess the determinants of the flow of Nigeria's exports using longitudinal data from 1999 to 2012. Extrapolating from the empirical literature, the paper constructs Nigeria's gravity trade model comprising nine EU countries, BRICS countries, Canada, Japan and the USA. Results from POOL and panel regressions - fixed and random effects show that market size and price index of destination countries positively drive trade flows in Nigeria, while relative factor endowment, economic similarities and geographical distance negatively affect Nigeria's trade flows. Furthermore, the paper found evidence in support of positive trade flows with the EU countries and negative trade flows with the BRICS countries and on account of cultural differences. Findings show that Nigeria's exports follow Linder hypothesis. These have important implications for economic, socio–cultural and bilateral trade negotiations for better trade performance in Nigeria in the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.007 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Trade and Global MarketsSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207