MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392197887 · doi:10.1111/twec.13553

Comparing alternative China and the <scp>US</scp> arrangements with <scp>CPTPP</scp>

2024· article· en· W4392197887 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Economy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaGeneral partnershipWelfareEconomicsBusinessPolitical scienceMarket economyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Following China's formal application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans‐Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the US' intention to rejoin the trade agreement has obviously strengthened. This article develops a numerical general equilibrium model encompassing 29 countries, incorporating the concept of inside money and trade costs. The aim is to simulate and compare the impacts of China and the US participating in the CPTPP. Comparison results indicate that China entering the CPTPP would yield greater benefits for remember countries in terms of trade, GDP and manufacturing employment compared to the US. Moreover, China's participation can also positively impact GDP and manufacturing employment in most non‐member countries. Additionally, our simulation results unveil that the US would be more favoured among CPTPP members and globally concerning welfare considerations.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.170 · 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