MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162696690 · doi:10.1111/1467-9485.00244

Border Effects and the Gravity Equation: Consistent Methods for Estimation

2002· article· en· W2162696690 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert C. Feenstra

Bibliographic record

VenueScottish Journal of Political Economy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravity equationMonopolistic competitionEstimationEconomicsEconometricsBilateral tradeGravity model of tradeMeasure (data warehouse)Simple (philosophy)Competition (biology)Border effectComputer scienceMicroeconomicsInternational economicsMonopolyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CES monopolistic competition model is an especially convenient way to derive the gravity equation, especially when we allow for transport costs and other trade barriers. In that case, we need to take account of the overall price indexes in each country. We review three methods to do so: using published data on price indexes; using the computational method of Anderson and van Wincoop; or using country fixed effects to measure the price indexes. The latter two methods are compared on the dataset dealing with trade between and within Canada and the US. The fixed effects method produces consistent estimates of the average border effect across countries, and is simple to implement, so it might be considered to be the preferred estimation method.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations76
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScottish Journal of Political EconomySame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207