MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Explaining National Border Effects in the QUAD Food Trade

2008· article· en· W2066324323 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alessandro Olper, Valentina Raimondi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Economics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTariffGravity model of tradeInternational economicsWelfareInternational tradeEconomicsCommercial policyTrade barrierBilateral tradeEconomic integrationRules of originGeographyChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using a ‘structural’ gravity‐like model, this paper first provides estimates of bilateral ‘border effects’ in food trade among the QUAD countries (the US, Canada, Japan and the EU) at the ISIC (International Standard Industrial Classification) four‐digit level (18 food sectors). It then investigates the underlying reasons for border effect, assessing the role played by policy barriers (tariffs, non‐tariff barriers to trade (NTBs) and domestic support) with respect to barriers unrelated to trade policy, such as information‐related costs, cultural proximity and preferences. In contrast to several previous findings, our results show that policy trade barriers, especially in the form of NTBs, are part of the story in explaining national border effects. Interestingly, in all country pair combinations, NTBs significantly dominate the trade reduction effect induced by tariffs. However, results show that elements linked to information‐related costs and consumer preferences matter a great deal in explaining the magnitude of border effects. These findings have implications for the economic and welfare‐related significance of national borders.

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)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations58
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural EconomicsSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207