MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180932177 · doi:10.1590/0103-8478cr20201043

Nigeria’s cocoa exports: a gravity model approach

2021· article· en· W3180932177 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nazir Muhammad Abdullahi, Saleh Shahriar, Sokvibol Kea, Aminu Muhammad Abdullahi, Qiangqiang Zhang, Xuexi Huo

Bibliographic record

VenueCiência Rural · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Agricultural Research System
KeywordsLandlocked countryGravity model of tradeDiversification (marketing strategy)EconomicsPer capitaPanel dataInternational economicsEarningsExchange rateInternational tradeAgricultural economicsBusinessMonetary economicsEconometricsPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: What are the major factors affecting Nigeria’s cocoa export flows? In answering this question, the authors suggest a commodity-specific gravity model with three different analytical approaches, (the Heckman Sample Selection Model, the Generalised Least Square, and the Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood), based on a period of 24 years of panel data for Nigeria and it’s 36 importing partners to estimate the models. The results showed that GDP, exchange rate policy, WTO, EU, and colonial link are positively associated with the Nigerian cocoa export flows. Further, the negative impact of the GDP per capita, landlocked, distance, AU, and ECOWAS are observed. The need for the expansion of exports to the trading partners, especially the EU members (Netherlands, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Belgium, Spain, etc.), Canada, Malaysia, and the USA is particularly highlighted. These results are important for the formulation of future trade policy that could boost up the Nigerian cocoa exports. This would eventually contribute to the diversification of the Nigerian exports and also enhance the country’s foreign earnings.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations29
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCiência RuralSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207