MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190278700 · doi:10.1002/jae.2871

Economic impact of the most drastic lockdown during COVID‐19 pandemic—The experience of Hubei, China

2021· article· en· W3190278700 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiao Ke, Chêng Hsiao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Econometrics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaInternational Association for Applied EconometricsMinistry of Education, IndiaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Counterfactual thinkingChinaPandemicGovernment (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakEconomicsSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Economic impact analysisPanel dataEconomic sectorDevelopment economicsBusinessEconomic policyEconomyGeographyOutbreakEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses a panel data approach to assess the evolution of economic consequences of the drastic lockdown policy in the epicenter of COVID-19-the Hubei Province of China during worldwide curbs on economic activity. We find that the drastic 76-day COVID-19 lockdown policy brought huge negative impacts on Hubei's economy. In 2020:q1, the lockdown quarter, the treatment effect on GDP was about 37% of the counterfactual. However, the drastic lockdown also brought the spread of COVID-19 under control in little more than two months. After the government lifted the lockdown in early April, the economy quickly recovered with the exception of passenger transportation sector which rebounded not as quickly as the rest of the general economy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations70
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EconometricsSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207