MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2492406814 · doi:10.30875/469bcb13-en

General Equilibrium Trade Policy Analysis with Structural Gravity

2016· paratext· en· W2492406814 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWTO Working papers · 2016
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsGlobal Affairs Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral equilibrium theoryCounterfactual thinkingGravity model of tradeApplied general equilibriumEconomicsPartial equilibriumFocus (optics)Mathematical economicsSeries (stratigraphy)Computer scienceEconometricsMacroeconomicsGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this manuscript is to serve as a practical guide for evaluation of the general equilibrium (GE) effects of trade policy using the structural gravity model. We try to achieve this objective in four steps. First, we focus on the original Armington-CES gravity model to offer a deep analysis of the structural relationships underlying the general equilibrium gravity system, and how they can be exploited to make trade policy inferences. Second, we present and discuss a series of indexes that can be used to summarize the GE effects of trade policy. Third, we summarize the standard procedures to perform counterfactual analysis with the gravity model, and we outline recent methods to obtain theory-consistent GE effects of trade policy. Finally, we demonstrate how gravity can be integrated with a broader class of general equilibrium models by nesting the Armington-CES model within a dynamic production superstructure with capital accumulation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.194 · 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