MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098805116

1 A GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER TARIFF ON THE WASHINGTON ECONOMY

2015· article· en· W7098805116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPhytochemistry and Bioactivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputable general equilibriumTariffCounterfactual thinkingEconomic impact analysisGeneral equilibrium theoryApplied general equilibriumRest (music)State (computer science)Economic analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gilbert (Utah State) during the study. We thank Tom Wahl (IMPACT Center, WSU) for providing data and financial support. 2 A sixteen-sector computable general equilibrium model of the Washington economy was used to analyze the effects of the tariff on Canadian softwood lumber imposed in May 2002. Model results indicate that the tariff generates a 0.5 percent increase in Washington lumber output. Lumber imports from Canada decline by 26 percent, while the rest of the US lumber imports from Washington State increase by 5 percent. This illustrates an important distinction between national and regional trade policy analysis. At the state level, there are opportunities to substitute imports from the rest of the US for taxed foreign imports and thus moderate the negative economic impact of lumber tariff. Just as the lumber industry is advantaged by the tariff, the lumber using industries are damaged by the tariff. Counterfactual output reductions ranged between 0.5 percent and 1.5 percent in the downstream industries. On balance, once the Washington economy adjusts to a new equilibrium, the predicted change in gross state product is a very modest loss of roughly 0.002 percent

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhytochemistry and Bioactivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207