MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165598376 · doi:10.1177/0020715213515694

What factors matter for trade at the global level? Testing five approaches to globalization, 1820–2007

2013· article· en· W2165598376 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roy Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCulture, Economy, and Development Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobalizationHegemonyGeopoliticsEconomicsInternational tradeInternational economicsPolitical sciencePoliticsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uses a global-level dataset with information across nearly two centuries to explore the factors associated with the expansion of international trade. The results of the autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity regressions show that trade since the early 1800s is strongly coupled with advancements in industrial technology and its ability to cut the cost of commodities transport. In addition, the spread of democracy and the geopolitical stability promoted by the hegemonic nation-state are additional factors that augment trade during the past two centuries. The findings also reveal that trade since the early 1900s is further enhanced by the growing membership base of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, given their propensity to generate compatible national institutions and a uniform set of rules for cross-national commodities exchange. However, there is no support for the claim that advancements in communications technology or the expansion of international governmental organizations increases trade globalization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.078 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicCulture, Economy, and Development StudiesFrench-language works237,207