MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Full Steam Ahead: Steamship Adoption and Trade Flows During the First Golden Age of Globalization

2025· article· en· W4415591572 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Economic Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Maritime and Colonial Histories
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersEconomic History Association
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)GlobalizationProduct (mathematics)Order (exchange)Trade volumeIntra-industry trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1870 to 1910, shipping to and from the US transitioned from an industry dominated by sail-powered ships to one where steam accounted for virtually 100% of shipping. I study the effects of the steamship on US port-level trade flows and their composition, leveraging cross-port differences in the speed and extent of steamship usage over time. In order to conduct this analysis, I digitize port-level trade flows disaggregated by product and port-level tables of shipping volume broken down by sail versus steam. I find that ports which increased their proportion of steam in shipping volumes increased trade by diversifying their trade flows. This diversification occurred along two dimensions: trading partner countries and products. In other words, ports which adopted steam saw more trade, driven principally by products and countries which were not initially dominant in that port’s trade in 1870. The results in this paper therefore suggest that one way in which trade diversification can occur is via the lowering of transport costs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueEuropean Economic ReviewSame topicGlobal Maritime and Colonial HistoriesFrench-language works237,207