MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618860294 · doi:10.5509/2015884813

Central America, China, and the Us: What Prospects for Development?

2015· article· en· W2618860294 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rolando Avendaño, Jeff Dayton‐Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Central America remains among the poorest subregions of Latin America, and many Central American countries are among the hemisphere’s most dependent upon primary-product exports. Unlike other commodity exporters in Latin America, however, Central American countries have not benefitted from booming Chinese demand for primary products. We use a series of measures to assess Central American countries’ trade structure, and find that they face increasing competition from Chinese products in third-country markets (like Mexico) but also little complementarity with Chinese demand (unlike Argentina or Chile). Central American countries continue to be very dependent upon the US market for exports—and, to a lesser extent, for foreign direct investment and foreign aid inflows—though dependence upon the US has slipped even as most of the countries in the subregion have entered into a preferential trade agreement with the US. The pattern of exports has shifted from agricultural to assembly plant manufactures in several countries, and Costa Rica now exports sophisticated manufactured products to the US and China alike. We explore the role that diplomatic relations may have played in Central America’s tepid China trade: all Central American countries save Costa Rica (since 2007) recognize Taiwan and not the People’s Republic of China. We end with some considerations of development strategies in the region.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific AffairsSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207