Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Heckscher-Ohlin theory of international trade remains an enigma.Despite being falsified on numerous counts (Bowen, Leamer and Sveikauskas 1987, Trefler, 1995), it persists as the core theory of international trade, found both in undergraduate and graduate textbooks, not to mention in much research and policy.Clearly, while it has failed to be confirmed by the data, www.videleaf.comthe notion that factor proportions motivate trade, whether at the regional or national level, continues to hold sway.This paper is an attempt at rehabilitating the factor proportions hypothesis (FPH) as a theory of interregional and international trade.Its main premise is simple, namely that the Heckscher-Ohlin Hypothesis (HOH) is one-but not the only possible-formalization of the FPH.An alternative formalization, based on a more realistic set of assumptions (endogenous technology, mobile capital and labor) is presented and is used to rationalize the paradoxical findings of HOH empirical tests.Supporting data are also provided.It concludes by examining the policy implications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".