MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972621142 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v10n6p241

Did Inter-Regional Trade Agreements Bring Mutual Benefits? An Empirical Scheme of Indonesian Commodity Exports in Asean-China Free Trade Area

2019· article· en· W2972621142 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andini Nurwulandari, I Made Adnyana, Hasanudin Hasanudin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaIndonesianCommodityInternational tradeInternational economicsEconomicsInternational free trade agreementComparative advantageStock (firearms)BusinessFree trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) on Indonesia's leading export commodities to China, Hong Kong and ASEAN countries. The methodology used is the model used below is based on New Trade Theory, which involves Comparative Advantage determinants including the total size of the country's economy, similarities in economic size, and differences in relative endowment factors. From the intended purpose, the results of this study are that commodities experiencing the largest growth in exports to all countries in 2010 were commodities with codes: 15, 87, 29 and 40. Meanwhile, commodities with code: 87: Vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling-stock, and parts and accessories thereof, and 27: Mineral fuels, mineral oils and products of their distillation; bituminous substances; mineral waxes, were export commodities whose growth was relatively stable, while commodities with code 26: ores, slag and ash, actually declined, and the potential for Indonesian trade cooperation with ASEAN-4 is still wide open. This was marked by an increase in Indonesia's exports to ASEAN-4 in 2010.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207