MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400601098 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.07652

The heterogeneous impact of the EU-Canada agreement with causal machine learning

2024· preprint· en· W4400601098 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lionel Fontagné, Francesca Micocci, Armando Rungi

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheEuropean Commission
KeywordsAgreementInternational economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a causal machine learning approach to investigate the effects of free trade agreements and applies it to the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Previous estimates of the impact of trade liberalization have been found to be unstable and contradictory, possibly due to the presence of heterogeneous treatment effects. The matrix completion estimator computes multidimensional counterfactuals in trade data at the firm, product, and destination levels. Compared with other estimators, it relies on a weaker exogeneity assumption and a more general functional form. In the case of CETA, we obtain both positive and negative idiosyncratic treatment effects at the product-destination level, although the sales-weighted average treatment effect is 6.4% in the year after the agreement. At the same time, we can estimate idiosyncratic treatment effects for the extensive margin at the product-destination level; thus, we find product churning beyond regular entry-exit dynamics: 8.1% that were not previously exported, and about 7.3% that are no longer exported. Finally, we consider the case of multiproduct firms after ranking product portfolios. After CETA, we observe a reallocation of French exports toward the first and most exported products, possibly driven by increased competition in the local market by other European producers after trade liberalization.

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 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 score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.142 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207