MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185462597 · doi:10.1111/twec.12413

Border Effects Before and After 9/11: Panel Data Evidence Across Industries

2016· article· en· W2185462597 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Zhiqi Chen, Horatiu A. Rus, Anindya Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Economy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPanel dataEconomicsVariety (cybernetics)International tradeYield (engineering)Free trade agreementEconometricsInternational economicsDemographic economicsFree tradeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The paper builds a unique industry‐level panel data set to estimate the border effects associated with US–Canada trade for each year from 1992 to 2005. We first establish the theoretical foundation of our empirical model as a multisector version of Anderson and van Wincoop. Estimates from data aggregated at the province/state level yield border effects that increase slightly in the early 1990s, then decline after the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but then increase significantly after 2001. Results based on three‐digit NAICS level data reveal higher border effects in the early 1990s and substantial heterogeneity across industries. The results are robust to a variety of specifications and models, and they suggest that the security measures adopted in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001 had considerable adverse effects on US–Canada trade.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld EconomySame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207