MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413019156 · doi:10.1111/ecin.70011

Building the walls of international trade after war: Can dispute resolution mechanisms (DRMs) help?

2025· article· en· W4413019156 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

VenueEconomic Inquiry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsInternational tradeDispute resolutionInternational economicsMicroeconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper explores how international trade recovers after war, emphasizing the role of dispute resolution mechanisms (DRMs). Wars typically prolong negative trade impacts due to heightened tensions, but DRMs—such as General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization and diplomatic exchanges—can reduce these tensions, lower policy uncertainty, and ease economic frictions, facilitating recovery. Using the gravity model, the study analyzes trade flows between countries with a history of conflict to test if DRM membership brings additional trade benefits. Results indicate that DRM membership is linked to positive trade effects for countries affected by war, likely accelerating recovery from disruptions caused by conflict.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.203 · 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