MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE DETERMINANTS OF THE G7 COUNTRIES INTRA TRADE: A GRAVITY MODEL APPROACH

2025· article· W7127929274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamaş Anca

Bibliographic record

VenueSWS International Scientific Conference on Social Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravity model of tradeTariffBilateral tradeOpenness to experiencePanel dataOrdinary least squaresPer capitaExchange rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the bilateral trade between G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States) in the period 2005-2020. The methodology is based on gravity model, using panel data and Ordinary Least Squares Method in EViews. The Pearson Correlation, the Unit Root Test and the Hausman test were performed. Three different gravity models were performed, with the exports, the imports and the bilateral trade flows as the dependent variables. The findings are: GDP of the exporters, GDP per capita of the importers, the export openness and the export market penetration are major predictors with a positive impact on the bilateral trade, while the distance between countries, the tariff costs and the non-tariff costs have a negative impact. There were some unexpected results too. The distance and the dummies are not statistically significant. The market penetration had an unexpected negative sign for export flows and the similarity distance had a negative sign too for import flows. The originality is replacing the distance with tariff trade costs and non tariff trade costs, as well as replacing trade openness with export openness and non trade openness, which are all better predictors. Further research should be conducted using a different estimator, like PPML.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.165 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSWS International Scientific Conference on Social SciencesSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207