MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6908534628 · doi:10.3386/w31233

The Aggregate Importance of Intermediate Input Substitutability

2023· report· en· W6908534628 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2023
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStanford Institute for Economic Policy ResearchHEC Montréal
KeywordsAggregate (composite)AgrégationProduction (economics)Component (thermodynamics)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate long-run elasticities of substitution between intermediate inputs for Indian manufacturing plants. India's trade liberalization in the early 1990s provides an ideal natural policy experiment, with permanent and heterogeneous tariff reductions inducing changes in relative prices which we use for identification. We find a high degree of substitutability at the plant-level between 8 broad categories of material inputs, significantly above the Cobb-Douglas benchmark of 1. In contrast, we find elasticities less than 1 between energy, materials, and services as well as between value added and intermediates. We embed our elasticities in a general equilibrium model with a rich input-output structure to quantify their importance. Relative to a Cobb-Douglas benchmark, the aggregate gains from trade are 9% larger when intermediate inputs are substitutes, and come hand in hand with 40% more reallocation of labor across sectors. Furthermore, the aggregate gains from closing the India-U.S. TFP gap in any one sector are on average 29% larger with our estimated elasticities; losses from misallocation of intermediate inputs are more than 3 times larger.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.438
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.079 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207