MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799939607 · doi:10.1111/twec.12664

GEPPML: General equilibrium analysis with PPML

2018· article· en· W2799939607 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James E. Anderson, Mario Larch, Yoto V. Yotov

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Economy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative staticsCounterfactual thinkingEconomicsEstimatorGravity model of tradeEconometricsGeneral equilibrium theoryPoisson distributionSimple (philosophy)Applied general equilibriumMathematical optimizationMathematical economicsMathematicsInternational tradeMicroeconomicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We develop a simple procedure for general equilibrium comparative static analysis of gravity models. Non‐linear solvers are replaced by (constrained) regressions using theoretical properties of the Poisson pseudo‐maximum‐likelihood estimator. Our GEPPML procedure can readily be implemented in any software capable of estimating constrained Poisson models. The procedure accommodates calibrated as well as estimated trade costs while using the estimation power of structural gravity to generate GE comparative statics. Using GEPPML, we quantify the effects of a hypothetical removal of all international borders while preserving the impact of geography on trade. We find that trade liberalisation has reaped at most half the potential world gains from trade in 2002 manufacturing. A complementary counterfactual experiment simulates the removal of the border between Canada and US, thus contributing to the famous “border puzzle” literature in a multicountry setting.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.003

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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 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

Citations115
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld EconomySame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207