MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135837325

A Macroecnomic Model of CETA's Impact on Austria

2017· report· en· W7135837325 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fritz Breuss

Bibliographic record

VenueWU Research · 2017
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionInternational free trade agreementTrade agreementParliamentFree tradeTrade barrierCustoms unionGoods and servicesSingle marketTrade diversion
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the European Union (EU) and Canada is the most ambitious (New generation) free trade agreement the EU has ever negotiated. It is a “mixed” agreement with EU and member states competences. Most elements of the agreement for which the EU has "exclusive competence", including the chapter on tariffs and non-tariff barriers (the dismantling of all barriers to trade in goods and services and market access to foreign direct investment) can – after the European Parliament gave its consent on 15 February 2017 - be applied provisionally in Spring 2017. With a specifically constructed macro-economic trade and growth model for Austria, we simulate the impact of CETA on Austria. CETA will add to Austria’s real GDP 0.3 percentage points in the medium run and will stimulate bilateral trade and FDI. Our model is a small prototype model and can easily be applied to other FTAs the EU is planning. A comparison shows that TTIP – which is “politically” dead now – would have the biggest impact (1.7% more real GDP).The almost finished negotiated EU-Japan FTA would result in an increase of Austria’s real GDP by 0.4% in the medium run.

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)0.003
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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.629
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.018 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWU ResearchFrench-language works237,207