Competitiveness of the EU food industry : ex-post assessmentof trade performance embedded in international economic theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deze studie beoordeelt de concurrentiepositie van de EU-levensmiddelenindustrie in vergelijking met die van de Verenigde Staten, Canada, Australië en Brazilië.Deze beoordeling is gebaseerd op handelsindicatoren (relatieve netto handelsvoordeel en exportaandelen op de wereldmarkt) en op economische indicatoren (toegevoegde waarde, arbeidsproductiviteit en aandeel toegevoegde waarde in de totale industriële productie).Deze studie is een actualisering van een eerdere studie uitgevoerd in 2007.De concurrentiepositie van de EU28 (exclusief de handel tussen lidstaten) bleef zwak: de drie economische indicatoren verzwakten en de handelsindicatoren verbeterden in periode 2 (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) in vergelijking met periode 1 (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007).De relatieve positie in periode 2 was zelfs zwakker dan de relatief zwakke positie in periode 1. Brazilië bleef de sterkste en de Verenigde Staten werd sterker.This study assessed the competitiveness of the EU food industry benchmarked against USA, Australia, Brazil and Canada.This assessment is based on trade indicators (Relative Net trade advantage and export share on the world market) and on economic indicators (value added, labour productivity and share value added in total manufacturing).This study is an update of an earlier study executed in 2007.The overall competitiveness performance of the EU28 (intra-EU trade excluded) remained weak: the three economic indicators weakened and the trade indicators improved in period (2) 2008-2012 compared to period (1) 2003-2007.The position in period 2 was even weaker than the relative weak position in period 1. Brazil remained the strongest and the USA became strong.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".