MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163046818 · doi:10.37625/abr.24.1.54-66

Have Business Cycles Become More Synchronous After NAFTA?

2021· article· en· W3163046818 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Puneet Vasta

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Business Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness cycleRobustness (evolution)Hodrick–Prescott filterFilter (signal processing)Synchronization (alternating current)International businessEconomicsInternational tradeInternational economicsBusinessMacroeconomicsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trade agreements do not necessitate business cycle comovement. Focusing on NAFTA, we investigate whether business cycles in Canada, Mexico, and the US have become more synchronous after the landmark trade agreement came into effect in 1994. To this end, using the newly-developed Hamilton filter, we decompose the real GDPs of the three countries to derive their business cycle components; then, we conduct time-difference analyses, which illuminate correlations at different time intervals, to study business cycle synchronization. We find that business cycles in Mexico and the US have become positively correlated after NAFTA—they were weakly and negatively correlated during the pre-NAFTA period. Contrastingly, correlations amongst the US and Canadian business cycles have weakened during the post-NAFTA period; nevertheless, these two countries' business cycles continue to be tightly and positively correlated. The oft-used Hodrick-Prescott filter is utilized to confirm the robustness of the results—the two filters lead to similar conclusions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Business ReviewSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207