MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394944979 · doi:10.4236/jss.2016.45008

Strategic Economic Partnerships, Exchange Rate Policy and Agricultural Trade: A Gravity Model Analysis of China’s Agricultural Trade Flows

2016· article· en· W2394944979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tadiwanashe Muganyi, Haibo Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Social Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureChinaGravity model of tradeExchange rateBusinessEconomicsInternational tradeIndustrial organizationFinancePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agricultural trade in China is greatly influenced by government policy activities particularly regional integration agreements, strategic economic partnerships and exchange rate policy. China’s agricultural sector has grown significantly in the past two decades however the factors that have led to this growth have not been fully explored. This study applied the Gravity model in analyzing China’s bilateral agricultural trade flows with its major agricultural trading partners namely USA, Brazil, Japan, Thailand, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Malaysia, Russia and Hong Kong. The study utilized trade flow panel data spanning over 15 years, from the year 2000 to 2014. Estimation results revealed that economic size, market size, distance between capitals, annual average market exchange rate, regional integration/strategic economic partnership status, cultural beliefs and language were all significant factors in explaining China’s bilateral agricultural trade flows for selected commodities in the period under review.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.129 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Journal of Social SciencesSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207