Do <scp>regional trade agreements</scp> affect agri‐food trade? Evidence from a meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Regional trade agreements (RTAs) have experienced significant growth worldwide, leading to an increase in studies assessing their impact on bilateral trade flows. With the availability of disaggregated trade data, numerous studies have examined the influence of these agreements specifically on agri‐food trade. However, the results of these studies exhibit heterogeneity, posing challenges for policymakers seeking to understand the effects of RTAs on agri‐food trade. To address this issue, we conducted a meta‐analysis of 61 studies investigating the effects of various RTAs on agri‐food trade. Using funnel asymmetric testing, our analysis reveals the presence of publication bias in the existing literature. By accounting for this bias, we found robust evidence that RTAs positively and significantly promote agri‐food trade. Notably, the extent of this effect depends on the depth of economic integration within the RTA, distinguishing between customs unions and free trade agreements, as well as the classification of agri‐food products as primary or processed. The ex‐post effects of RTAs on agri‐food trade are less pronounced when we control for both publication bias and heterogeneity, compared to controlling only for publication bias.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it