MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285521744 · doi:10.1079/9781789248234.0142

Softwood lumber trade and trade restrictions: gravity model.

2020· book-chapter· en· W4285521744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xintong Li, Fatemeh Mokhtarzadeh, G. Cornelis van Kooten

Bibliographic record

VenueCABI eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravity model of tradeTariffChinaEconomicsSoftwoodValue (mathematics)International tradeInternational economicsGeographyMathematicsEngineeringPulp and paper industryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<title>Abstract</title> A gravity trade model can be used to determine the effects of policy on bilateral trade flows. The gravity model is initially explained and then used to determine the effect that U.S. tariffs have on softwood lumber (SWL) imports from Canada, using information from the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement. Quarterly data for seven Canadian and three U.S. regions for the period 2007-2017 are used to estimate a gravity model of SWL trade. The model is subsequently expanded to include Japan and China as separate regions, and then as a combined China-Japan region. The model is estimated using OLS and a Poisson Pseudo-Maximum-Likelihood method for trade quantity and value. Findings indicate that: (1) the imposition of a countervailing 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 26% on average under a tax/tariff compared with no duties; (3) the tax/tariff has a smaller but still significant impact on Canadian exports when China and Japan are included, as SWL exports are diverted from the U.S.; 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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCABI eBooksSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207