MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142918016 · doi:10.1139/x01-130

Welfare impacts of the 1996 United States - Canada Softwood Lumber (trade) Agreement

2001· article· en· W2142918016 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Daowei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian GovernmentCanadian Forest ServiceALS Society of CanadaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSoftwoodWelfareEconomicsAgricultural economicsTariffInternational tradePulp and paper industryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates welfare impacts of the 1996 United States – Canada Softwood Lumber (trade) Agreement (SLA), which set up a tariff-regulated quota system to restrict softwood lumber export from Canada to the United States. An aggregate price model is used to estimate the price impact of the SLA, and the implied quantity and welfare effects are examined. The results show that while the anticipated change in lumber price is about $59 in 1997 U.S. dollars or 16%, on average, for the first 4 years under the SLA, the gains to U.S. producers of softwood lumber are large and the losses to U.S. consumers are much larger. In addition, Canadian producers have benefitted from the SLA in the U.S. market, and the Canadian government has collected a small amount of additional export fees. As the overall efficiency costs of the SLA are modest, the SLA can be seen as an effective means of welfare transfer from U.S. consumers to the U.S. and Canadian producers. These results should provide a framework for ongoing trade policy debate.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations50
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207