MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205906111 · doi:10.1561/112.00000534

A Gravity Model of Softwood Lumber Trade: An Application to the Canada-U.S. Trade Dispute

2021· article· en· W3205906111 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xintong Li, Fatemeh Mokhtarzadeh, G. Cornelis van Kooten

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forest Economics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTariffGravity model of tradeChinaEconomicsSoftwoodValue (mathematics)International economicsInternational tradeAgricultural economicsGeographyPulp and paper industryEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A gravity model of softwood lumber (SWL) trade is developed and used to determine the effect that U.S. tariffs have on SWL exports from Canada to the U.S. The gravity model employs quarterly data for seven Canadian and three U.S. regions over the period 2007–2019; it is expanded to include Japan and China as separate regions, and then as a combined China-Japan region. The effect of a Canadian export tax or U.S. import tariff is examined using information on the Softwood Lumber Agreement (effective from 2006 to 2015), which included a trigger mechanism that varied the tax/tariff. The gravity model was estimated for trade quantity and value using OLS and a Poisson Pseudo-Maximum-Likelihood estimation method for different configurations of the China-Japan export regions. Our findings indicate that (1) the imposition of a countervail and/or anti-dumping duty usually has a negative effect on Canada’s physical exports, but not in all cases; (2) the value of softwood lumber trade decreases by 0.054% on average with each 1% increase of tax/tariff; (3) the tax/tariff has a significant impact on Canadian exports when China and Japan are included; and, not surprisingly, (4) duties affect the value of lumber exports to a much greater extent than quantity.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forest EconomicsSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207