MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625400777 · doi:10.1111/twec.13061

Vertical specialisation and gains from trade

2020· article· en· W2625400777 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

VenueWorld Economy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsSalientProduction (economics)ProductivityEconometricsVertical integrationBilateral tradeTrade barrierInternational tradeInternational economicsMicroeconomicsMacroeconomicsIndustrial organizationChinaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multi‐stage production is a significant source of gains from trade in many recent quantitative trade models. Meanwhile, specialisation across stages of production, or ‘vertical specialisation’, has been largely ignored in these models. In this paper, I provide evidence that vertical specialisation is a salient feature in the international trade data, which suggests that standard models are inaccurate. I develop a model with multi‐stage production where country‐level productivity differences provide a basis for vertical specialisation and potentially new gains from trade. I then quantify the gains from vertical specialisation according to the model using data. Despite the evidence of vertical specialisation in the data, I find that the average gains from trade due to this channel are modest at less than 1% of GDP. These results suggest that, if vertical specialisation is an important source of gains from trade, then revealing these gains may require either more complex models, or more granular data, than are typically used in workhorse quantitative trade models.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.002

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.109 · 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