MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526438876 · doi:10.1111/sjoe.12230

Trading Goods or Human Capital: The Gains and Losses from Economic Integration

2017· article· en· W2526438876 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michał Burzyński

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Economics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsComplementarity (molecular biology)International economicsShock (circulatory)Economic integrationTariffFree tradeTrade barrierHuman capitalBilateral tradeInternational tradeMonetary economicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, I quantify the economic consequences of liberalizing migration in the OECD and compare them with those of a hypothetical liberalization of trade across the OECD. First, I investigate the bilateral migration and trade agreements between the EU and Australia, Canada, Japan, Turkey, and the US. Second, I show that the overall impact of reducing all legal restrictions on migration in the OECD is moderate (1.6 percent in real GDP), while the gains from removing tariff and non‐tariff barriers to trade among all of the OECD economies are slightly lower (1.1 percent in real GDP). Finally, both the theoretical and numerical findings suggest that the direction of relationships between trade and migration (either substitutability or complementarity) depends on the type of shock imposed in the system.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of EconomicsSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207