MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127852758 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14020071

E.U. and China Trends in Trade in Challenging Times

2021· article· en· W3127852758 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Irena Jindřichovská, Erginbay Uğurlu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMetropolitan University Prague
KeywordsChinaCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)International tradeProduction (economics)Chinese economyInternational economicsEconomicsBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sudden and abrupt rise of COVID-19 became a challenge for the world economy. In this paper, we investigate the changes in a trend of mutual trade between the EU-15 countries and China during the demanding times of the COVID-19 crisis. We use monthly data for Chinese exports to the E.U. (2018:01–2020:05) and imports from the E.U. (2018:01–2020:07) relying on the data from the open-source TradeMap developed by the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO (ITC). Overall, there is an obvious decline of 13–32 percent in worldwide trade as predicted by the WTO. This affected China as the main trading partner of electronic devices and medical supplies. The trade between the E.U. and China has decreased, but the major change in demand brought an alteration in commodities structures and the reorientation of Chinese export production. In the first five months of 2020, we witnessed the strong engagement of the Chinese economy in the production of goods newly in high demand—mainly articles strongly related to healthcare and medical equipment. Thus, we have observed that the Chinese were very flexible in changing the structure of their exports triggered by the COVID-19 crisis. This flexibility is worth further exploration, especially because the COVID-19 crisis is still not over and new data and changing results can be expected.

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)0.001
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 score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207