MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2200461286 · doi:10.6846/tku.2010.00856

北美自由貿易協定對美國的個人所得以及就業之影響─追蹤資料(Panel Data)分析

2010· article· zh· W2200461286 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
賴彥雄

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagezh
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economic and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsTrade diversionInternational tradeGravity model of tradeComparative advantageForeign direct investmentInternational economicsGross domestic productPanel dataProduct (mathematics)Trade creationFactor endowmentFree tradeUnemploymentInternational free trade agreementMacroeconomicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been 15 years since North American Free Trade Agreement took effect in January 1994. When President Clinton gave remarks at signing of NAFTA side agreements, he promised that NAFTA will create 200,000 jobs within the U.S. in the first two years of its effect, as well as generating another 1 million jobs three years later. Moreover, the research released by United States International Trade Commission in 1992 indicates that NAFTA will help both the U.S. real Gross Domestic Product and employment rate rise 5 percent per year and 0.1 to 2.5 percent. However, 15 years has passed, but the only question still exists. “How is the benefit of NAFTA to the U.S.?” According to the huge growth of trade and Foreign Direct Investment among the three nations, NAFTA seems like a success. Nevertheless, instead of looking at trade and FDI, this research aims to figure out NAFTA’s effect to the U.S. by applying regression analysis to analyze unemployment rate, personal income, and Gross State Product. These data are organized into a panel data and analyzed by Ordinary Least Square and Random Effect Model. The fundamental theories that back this thesis up can be divided into two categories, the classical theory of international trade and gravity model. The classical theory of international trade including division of labor, the theory of absolute advantage, the theory of comparative advantage, and theory of factor endowment explain that how do countries become better of after they trade with each other, as well as how do NAFTA integrate successfully in such a great economic disparity. Furthermore, in the sense of gravity model, the geographical distance and the difference of economic masses of two different countries can really influence the trade between them. To sum up, the main purposes of this research are, firstly, are the benefits of NAFTA to the fifteen border states much more significant than non-border states? Secondly, did those senators really concerns about the interest of their own states before they cast the vote? Finally, according to the result of the empirical work, border states to Canada has barely benefited from NAFTA. On the contrary, border states to Mexico has fairly performed on their economic growth since NAFTA took effect in 1994. The change of unemployment rate has a very significant drop, and both personal income and GSP have a rather small but positive growth. Beside, the result based on the states of vote for and vote against NAFTA does certainly provide very strong evidence that most of the senators did concern about their state interest before they cast the vote.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.017

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRegional Economic and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207