MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926507676 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.364771

IEEPA Tariff Escalation: What It Means for U.S. Food and Ag-Input Imports

2025· report· en· W6926507676 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2025
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Political Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTariffChinaAgricultureQuarter (Canadian coin)Trade diversionConsumption (sociology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The August 2025 NDSU Agricultural Trade Monitor analyzes the impact of the IEEPA tariffs on U.S. agri-food imports and farm inputs, alongside the latest export data. The trade-weighted effective tariff on agri-food imports rises from 4% MFN to 15%, though USMCA carve-outs and an EU deal blunt the aggregate shock; non-exempt suppliers such as Brazil, India, Switzerland, and China face steep rates (30–50%) that especially hit coffee, bottled water, and packaged foods. The effective tariff on agricultural inputs jumps from 1% to 12%, with pesticides near 25% and tractors/parts 13–16%, while fertilizer impacts remain muted due to Canadian exemptions. China extends its Section 301 exclusion window (applications through Oct 30; approvals through Dec 13) amid a 90-day tariff truce, yet U.S. exports to China are still down 53% year-to-date. Overall, June export value rose 3% year-over-year but is 2% year-to-date, with corn and ethanol remaining firm while soybeans, beef, and poultry sit at multi-year lows; underscoring higher input costs, uneven import exposure, and a fragile outlook for U.S. agricultural producers and exporters.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicHistorical and Political StudiesFrench-language works237,207