MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323072803 · doi:10.5558/tfc2014-131

Changes in Chinese wood-based exports to the U.S.: Post Lacey Act amendment

2014· article· en· W2323072803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ziyi Lu, Indroneil Ganguly, Ivan Eastin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsChinaPrinciple of legalityLegislationChinese marketBusinessAgricultural economicsInternational tradeCommerceLawEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent adoption of timber legality legislation in the U.S. (the Lacey Act 2008 amendment) requiring timber imports be sourced from legally harvested wood could have profound impacts on China's re-exports of manufactured wood products to the U.S. This study examines empirically how Chinese wood manufacturers’ sales to the U.S. have changed in response to the Lacey Act. A sample of 225 Chinese wood manufacturers was drawn from two trade shows in Shanghai, China in 2013. The results reveal that Chinese companies’ awareness of the Lacey Act has played an important role in their decision to export to the U.S. over the last five years. The companies who are less familiar with the Lacey Act tend to withdraw from the U.S. market and focus on domestic market. Also the smaller Chinese companies were more likely to withdraw from the U.S. market in the aftermath of the Lacey Act as compared to their larger counterparts. Finally, the Chinese companies that have increased their imports of raw materials from the U.S. were found to have increased their sales to the U.S. market over the last five years.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207