MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2992208853

WHAT DRIVES SOUTH AFRICA’S DISAGGREGATED IMPORT DEMAND FUNCTION WITH TANZANIA? AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

2012· article· en· W2992208853 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ranjini L. Thaver

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTanzaniaCointegrationEconomicsExchange rateShort runInternational economicsError correction modelForeign direct investmentVolatility (finance)Investment (military)Monetary economicsMacroeconomicsEconometrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This empirical study investigates the behavior of South African imports from Tanzania during the period 1980-2010 utilizing cointegration analysis and the Error Correction Model developed by Pesaran, Shin, and Smith (2001).  Results indicate that a long run stable relationship between imports and its independent variables exists. Estimates of the long-run and short-run partial elasticities of imports with respect to relative prices, real foreign reserves, exchange rate volatility, consumption expenditure, investment, and exports meet theoretical expectations and are mostly significant. The results of two dummy variables employed to capture the impact of apartheid (1980-1994) and the post-apartheid commitment to increase trade with other African countries (1996-2010) reveal that apartheid negatively drove imports, while the policy to increase trade has had a positive but inelastic impact on imports from Tanzania. To increase south-south trade and strengthen its own economy and that of Tanzania, we suggest that South Africa increases trade with Tanzania.

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)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business Research→Same topicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact→French-language works237,207→