MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modern trends in trade in goods and services between USA and China

2020· article· en· W3133315673 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueACADEMICIA An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Political and Economic Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaGoods and servicesInternational tradeBusinessTrade in servicesCommerceEconomicsGeographyEconomyTrade barrierArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2012, bilateral trade in goods between the United States and China amounted to 536.1 billion dollars. China was in second place in terms of trade with the United States after Canada, the third export market and the largest supplier of goods for the United States. More and more often these companies now receive permission to conduct operations in China to implement their services to consumers in this territory. This opens up great opportunities for US service provider companies. In addition, increasing trade with China has a positive effect on labor productivity in the United States. This effect was especially noticeable until 2005. US consumers win twice: firstly, their average annual income increases by the same percentage as GDP; secondly, the level of consumer prices is falling.

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.

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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.319 · 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