MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2375687810

An Empirical Study on International Market Forces of China's Iron and Steel Industry

2014· article· en· W2375687810 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kan Da-xu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaInternational marketInternational tradeEconomicsPeople's RepublicDomestic marketInternational economicsBusinessMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses the marginal cost model to estimate international market power of China's iron and steel industry and finds that international market forces of China's iron and steel industry have dropped after joining the WTO, and international market forces of China's iron and steel industry were small before and after China's joining the WTO. Then it selects the iron and steel of the SITC(Rev.2) 67 and uses the expand residual demand elasticity model to empirically study their international market forces in the Republic of Korea, India, Japan and the United States. It is found that market forces are in turn reduced in the Republic of Korea, Japanese and Indian markets, and market forces have not yet formed in the U.S. market. It indicates that China's iron and steel products export has a certain amount of international market forces, and the ratio of export price and import price tends to decrease and low-cost advantages have gradually weakened. Comparative interests in trade obtained by China's iron and steel products have gradually reduced. Real international market forces of China's iron and steel products are not obvious.

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)0.003
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business Research→Same topicGlobal trade and economics→French-language works237,207→