Exploring research trends in ASEAN and RCEP: A bibliometric study of tariffs and trade liberalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) have played a pivotal role in influencing international trade patterns over the years. Using tariff reduction and trade liberalisation, ASEAN and RCEP are motivated to enhance the economy efficiency and competitiveness of its members which is proven to be one of the most important agenda in these economic structures. Therefore, this study seeks to examine the evolution of research surrounding ASEAN and RCEP economic frameworks, especially focusing on tariff and trade liberalization. This study used data extracted from Scopus database to perform bibliometric analysis. Through bibliometric analysis, this study uncovered the research trend, total publications, total citations and citation per paper. The most productive and authors, prominent journals, countries and institutions are revealed within these two significant economic frameworks. This study provides a foundational overview of existing literature on tariff and trade liberalization in ASEAN and RCEP, offering important implications for decision-makers, academics, and practitioners interested in the regional economic integration. Despite the increasing number of studies on ASEAN and RCEP, existing works remain scattered and lack systematic bibliometric analysis. This study addresses this gap by mapping the intellectual landscape by providing evidence-based insights that inform future research directions and regional policy discussions
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".