MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099632717 · doi:10.5539/res.v6n4p12

EU-China Economic Relations: Interactions and Barriers

2014· article· en· W2099632717 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zheng Lü, Yan Tianqin, Xiang Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesSichuan University
KeywordsChinaClothingTariffTrade barrierInternational tradeInvestment (military)International economicsEconomic integrationBusinessInternational free trade agreementBilateral tradeEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EU-China economic interactions became more and more frequent in the past decades, nowadays EU and China are main trade partner for each other. This paper analyzed EU-China economic interactions from three dimensions: bilateral governmental interactions, trade and investment flows as well as barriers to trade and investment. Findings show that EU-China close relationship is particularly based on goods trade especially on intra-industrial trade of manufacturing industrial products, and trade imbalance is arising from trade in Machinery and Transport Equipment and Other Manufactured Goods (e.g., Clothing and clothing accessories); This paper also found that there exist a myriad of trade and investment barriers to EU-China interactions, including both tariff and non-tariff obstacles. Therefore, this paper argued that if EU and China want to handle the trade imbalance efficiently, they must improve composition of trade in goods, while essentially, it requires lessening or eliminating EU-China trade barriers which hampered trade composition improvement.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207