Canada and U.S. Outward FDI and Exports: Are China and India Special?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using cross-country time series data for the period 1989–2001 we analyze the Canadian and United States' outward FDI and export performances, particularly to China and India. Casual examination of data may suggest that Canada is underperforming in its exports and FDI to China, but results from our econometric model do not support that conclusion. We found that Canada's FDI in India is lower than that predicted by the model. Interestingly, while the evidence that investors from the United States tend to invest more in the growing economies is quite strong, it is weak in the case of Canada. Although in-depth research is necessary to understand these differences, it is plausible that there are mismatches between the areas where investment opportunities are available in the fastest-growing parts of the world such as China and India, and the areas in which Canadians have comparative advantage. For example, financial services and mining constitute a big share in Canadian FDI abroad but these sectors are yet to be opened up in China and India. The U.S. FDI base is more diversified and better able to take advantage of the increased opportunities in fast-growing countries such as China and India.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".