Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study estimates the impact of interprovincial and international migration on interprovincial trade using annual data from 1981- 2016 for Canadian provinces. We apply both the gravity and the spatial trade models for estimation using a number of panel estimators. We find that the endogeneity issue should be addressed when estimating the relationship between migration and interprovincial trade. Estimated results show that interprovincial and international net migrations are positive and significant determinants for interprovincial trade of Canada. Interprovincial immigration is more influential than international immigration in explaining interprovincial trade. Interprovincial imports are influenced more by interprovincial and international migration than interprovincial exports. Province-wise estimates indicate that Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick are positively affected by interprovincial migration. Among them, all except New Brunswick are also positively affected by international migration. The gravity and the spatial trade models are useful to explain Canadian interprovincial trade. The pooled OLS, fixed effects, 2SLS and SGMM estimators are used in this study. Our results are robust to different estimation methods and alternative measures using both the flow and the stock net migration in Canada’s provinces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".