MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122407355 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.23566

PROCESSED FOOD TRADE AND FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT UNDER NAFTA

2002· article· en· W3122407355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Won W. Koo, Jeremy Mattson

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Trade and Competitiveness
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorth Dakota State UniversityU.S. Department of the Treasury
KeywordsForeign direct investmentInternational tradeFree tradeInternational economicsTrade barrierEconomicsBusinessFree trade agreementInternational free trade agreement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trade in processed food products is rapidly growing. Trade with Canada and Mexico has especially been growing since free trade agreements have been implemented. The U.S. presence in the processed food industry in other countries through foreign direct investment (FDI) is also large and has been expanding. The relationship between trade and FDI is uncertain and subject to much debate. Japan and Canada are the largest importers of processed foods from the United States, followed by Mexico and Korea. Canada is the leading exporter of food products to the United States, followed by France, Mexico, and Italy. Canada and Mexico have, in recent years, become increasingly important trading partners in processed foods. Results from this study do not conclusively indicate any type of relationship between FDI and trade. Trade in processed foods also appears to be mostly insensitive to the exchange rate. Some of the increase in trade flows can be explained by growth in real GDP. Trade liberalization may also explain the increase in trade flows. Free trade agreements have positively influenced U.S. FDI in Canada and Mexico. Labor cost and inflation in the host country also influences U.S. FDI.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicGlobal Trade and CompetitivenessFrench-language works237,207