MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2258757317

Adjusting to bilateral trade liberalisation under an EPA: Evidence for Mauritius

2007· preprint· en· W2258757317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Milner, Oliver Morrissey, Evious Zgovu

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2007
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsWelfareEconomicsRevenueProduction (economics)International economicsTariffDeadweight lossComputable general equilibriumProductivityLiberalizationQuarter (Canadian coin)MacroeconomicsMarket economyFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper estimates the impact and adjustment costs for Mauritius of eliminating tariffs on imports from the EU under an EPA, considering trade, revenue, welfare, production and employment effects, and considering the potential benefit of preserving preferential access to the EU market. Assuming ‘immediate’ complete elimination of all tariffs on imports from the EU, there is a small welfare loss (-0.17% of 2002 GDP) unless we include potential production gains (generating a welfare gain of 0.06% of GDP). Excluding up to 20% of imports as sensitive products, the overall welfare loss is -0.19% of GDP. However, potential adjustment costs are much greater than these low welfare effects suggest: tariff revenue will fall by 33-52% of 2002 levels, domestic (non-export) production will decline by almost a quarter and direct employment by 12% (about 11,000 jobs lost overall). Preferences under an EPA are unlikely to support any growth in the major export sectors (sugar and garments), so absorbing the adjustment costs will be difficult.

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)0.015
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.121 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)→Same topicGlobal trade and economics→French-language works237,207→