MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2560808500

Trois essais en commerce international

2013· article· fr· W2560808500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guy Chapda Nana

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette thèse se compose de trois essais de nature théorique et empirique qui abordent deux sujets principaux: l’estimation des fonctions de Produit National Brut et l’analyse des politiques stratégiques avec transmission de taux de change et production risquée. Le premier essai propose une approche novatrice dans l’analyse de l’impact des accords régionaux de commerce sur le commerce et s’applique à l’Accord de Libre-Échange (ALE) entre le Canada et les États-Unis de 1989, qui a été élargi au Mexique sous le nom d’Accord de Libre-Échange Nord-Américain (ALÉNA) en 1994. Grâce à un modèle économétrique intégrant la notion de changement structurel graduel aux fonctions de Produit National Brut pour le Canada et les États-Unis, nous montrons que suite à l’adoption des dits accords de libre-échange ces deux économies ont connu des sentiers d’ajustements différents s’expliquant notamment par leur différence de tailles. En effet, pour le Canada, l’impact de l’ALÉ a été anticipé et plus important, et s’est poursuivi jusqu’au début des années 1990. Cependant, pour les États-Unis, nous enregistrons un changement structurel plutôt brusque et qui serait survenu en 1995. Le deuxième essai est une contribution aux études empiriques réalisées à l’aide

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.013

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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