MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270587472 · doi:10.1505/146554815817476459

Measuring the economic impacts of trade liberalisation on forest products trade in the Asia-Pacific region using the GTAP model

2015· article· en· W2270587472 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luz Centeno Stenberg, Mahinda Siriwardana

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Forestry Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsLiberalizationInternational tradeInternational economicsNatural resource economicsAgricultural economicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY The paper examines the effects of unilateral trade liberalisation of forest products amongst the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member countries. It attempts to quantify the gains from liberalised trade when APEC member countries extend their preferential treatment to non-member countries in forest products trade using the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model. Given that forest products comprise only a relatively small proportion of world merchandise trade, it is expected that trade liberalisation would cause small changes in terms of trade, real GDP, production, consumption and prices of forest products amongst APEC member countries. The results suggest that in general, when more countries participate in trade liberalisation the more welfare could be improved with the exception of the region North America which is comprised of three countries, the United States of America, Canada and Mexico.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.005 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Forestry ReviewSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207