MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152159057 · doi:10.1111/1467-9701.00473

Trade Reform and Poverty: The Case of Mexico

2002· article· en· W2152159057 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elena Ianchovichina, Alessandro Nicita, Isidro Soloaga

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Economy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputable general equilibriumEconomicsTariffDecileFree tradeInternational economicsWelfarePovertyLotteryApplied general equilibriumMacroeconomicsGeneral equilibrium theoryMicroeconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use a two‐step computationally simple procedure to analyse the effects of Mexico's's potential unilateral tariff liberalisation on real incomes. First, we use the CGE model provided by the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) as the new price generator. Second, we apply the price changes to Mexican household data in order to assess the effects of the policy simulation on poverty and income distribution. Although Mexico widely liberalised most of its imports by the mid 90s, one salient feature is its membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and United States. By choosing GTAP as the price generator, we are able to model the differential tariff structure. Even starting with a low level of tariff protection, simulation results show that the impact of tariff reform on welfare will be positive in general for all expenditure deciles. We find that, when we assume non‐homothetic individual preferences, trade liberalisation benefits people in the poorer deciles more than those in the richer ones.

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)0.002
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations26
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld EconomySame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207