MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794062191 · doi:10.1002/app5.206

United States–China Trade: President Trump's Misunderstandings

2017· article· en· W2794062191 on OpenAlexaff
Ralph W. Huenemann

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia & the Pacific Policy Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersYale University
KeywordsChinaBalance of tradeEconomicsInternational tradeGovernment (linguistics)Exchange rateProtectionismInternational economicsPolitical scienceMonetary economicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract President Trump's analysis of the persistent United States–China trade imbalance reveals fundamental misunderstandings of basic economics. During the 2016 campaign, candidate Trump made an important Big Promise with two facets: to bring back American jobs from other countries (especially China) and to eliminate the American trade deficit. But, as pointed out by Barack Obama in his farewell address, many of the American jobs were lost to factory automation, not to imports. Furthermore, if China's central bank had pursued a less interventionist foreign exchange rate policy, most of the labor‐intensive imports from China would have been produced in other low‐wage countries, not in domestic factories. Finally, and most importantly, the persistent American foreign trade deficits (with many countries, not just with China) arise from the domestic imbalance between taxes and government expenditures. Unless this budget imbalance is dealt with, the foreign trade imbalance will necessarily continue.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia & the Pacific Policy StudiesSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207