MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046671566 · doi:10.2202/1538-0653.1260

Intranational Trade Diversion, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, and the L Curve

2004· article· en· W2046671566 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Serge Coulombe

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Economic Analysis & Policy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorder effectEconomicsGravity model of tradeTrade diversionInternational tradeInternational economicsInternational free trade agreementTrade barrierFree trade agreementTrade creationFree trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper provides an empirical analysis of the comparative evolution of intranational and international trade in the Canadian provinces since 1981. We establish a striking empirical fact, the L curve, that characterizes the comparative evolution of intranational (interprovincial) and international trade shares to GDP between 1981 and 2000. We also use a panel data model to evaluate the impact of changing trade costs induced by the CUSFTA on the intensity of international and interprovincial trade. The analysis casts doubt on the intranational trade diversion hypothesis, common in trade models such as the structural gravity model of Anderson and van Wincoop (2003) that was used recently to revisit the Canada–U.S. border effect. International trade appears to complement rather than substitute for interprovincial trade.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Economic Analysis & PolicySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207