MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411356252 · doi:10.1111/twec.13739

The Impacts of Economic Sanctions on Food (Prices) Security: Evidence From Targeted Countries

2025· article· en· W4411356252 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 · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersEuropean University Institute
KeywordsSanctionsFood securityEconomic sanctionsFood pricesBusinessNatural resource economicsEconomicsDevelopment economicsInternational tradeEconomic policyInternational economicsPolitical scienceAgricultureGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Our paper examined the impact of economic sanctions on food prices and security. Anecdotal evidence suggests that food security is threatened in nations subject to sanctions. However, the causal link has not been proven. We employ a two‐way fixed‐effects approach and leverage the entropy balancing technique to ascertain the existence of a causal link. Our analysis relies on the Global Sanctions Database for sanctions and the FAOSTAT database for food security proxies: food prices and prevalence of undernourishment (PoU). Sanctions increase food prices: during the sanctions period, real food prices are higher by 1.24 percentage points compared to the non‐sanctions period. Although the increase in food prices is marginal, overall food security is threatened, as the PoU is 2.1 percentage points higher during sanctions compared to periods without sanctions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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