MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413076958 · doi:10.1007/s13278-025-01490-3

The global arms and integrated circuits trade through complex network analysis

2025· article· en· W4413076958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Georgios D. Papadopoulos, L. Magafas

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Network Analysis and Mining · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Technological Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAristotle University of Thessaloniki
KeywordsGeopoliticsChinaInterdependenceInternational tradeNetwork analysisEuropean unionRegional scienceEconomyEconomic geographyPolitical scienceBusinessGeographyEconomicsEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Open access to a wide range of economic databases enables researchers to explore the global economy using computational methods. This paper applies network analysis to global export data to investigate complex interdependencies. Given that the nature of exported products is a crucial element of foreign policy, the insights gained from such analysis are particularly valuable when viewed alongside concurrent geopolitical trends. This paper examines export data for light arms, ammunition, and related parts, as well as electronic integrated circuits and their components, across more than 220 countries and territories. By creating directed, weighted networks based on export volumes from 2003 to 2022, this analysis identifies key exporting countries in each category and traces shifts in geopolitical influence over time. In the light arms sector, traditional powers such as the USA, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy dominate, along with emerging players like Turkey. In contrast, in the field of electronic integrated circuits, East Asian countries-particularly Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China- dominate global trade, surpassing traditionally strong Western economies, such as the USA, Canada, and the European Union.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Network Analysis and MiningSame topicEconomic and Technological InnovationFrench-language works237,207