MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784501776 · doi:10.1093/ereh/hey029

The anatomy of a trade collapse: the UK, 1929–1933

2018· article· en· W2784501776 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alan de Bromhead, Alan Fernihough, Markus Lampe, Kevin O’Rourke

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Review of Economic History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohn Fell Fund, University of OxfordSeventh Framework ProgrammeEuropean CommissionQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastUniversity of Essex
KeywordsProtectionismEconomicsFellStylized factMargin (machine learning)Great recessionGreat DepressionInternational economicsCommodityRecessionInternational tradeMonetary economicsKeynesian economicsMarket economyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent literature explores the nature and causes of the 2008–2009 collapse in international trade. The decline was particularly great for automobiles and industrial supplies; it occurred largely along the intensive margin; quantities fell by more than prices; and prices fell less for differentiated products. Do these “stylized facts” hold for all trade collapses? This paper uses detailed, commodity-specific information on UK imports between 1929 and 1933 to compare the Great Depression and the Great Recession. It also compares the free trading collapse of 1929–1931 with the protectionist collapse of 1931–1933, to examine the relative importance of protection for the UK trade patterns.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Review of Economic HistorySame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207