MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195113604 · doi:10.5509/2021943465

Are Economic Sanctions against North Korea Effective? Assessing Nighttime Light in 25 Major Cities

2021· article· en· W3195113604 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sung Hyun Son, Joonmo Cho

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Topics in Contemporary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographySanctionsChinaEconomic sanctionsProxy (statistics)Economic geographyDevelopment economicsEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes the effects of the economic sanctions against North Korea since 2016 on the economic well-being of North Korean cities. As a proxy for economic well-being, we use nighttime light (NTL), which we estimate from 1992 to 2019 through an inter-calibration process for DMSP/OLS and SNPP/VIIRS. We found that NTL in North Korea was getting brighter up until 2009, but that the growth rate of total NTL in 25 major North Korean cities began to decrease from 2016. The decline in the NTL growth rate of Pyongyang, the capital city, as well as in cities bordering China and in self-regenerating cities, was relatively slight. By contrast, the declines in the NTL growth rate of coal-mining cities and inland cities without sufficient production bases were greater than those in other cities, and some cities experienced negative growth in 2019. Cities in regions relying on coal mining have traditionally accounted for a large portion of North Korea’s exports, and since these cities have been heavily affected by sanctions, coal mining could become a vulnerable sector, which would threaten North Korea’s economic well-being.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific AffairsSame topicDiverse Topics in Contemporary ResearchFrench-language works237,207