MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7146208018

Daily Gravity

2018· report· en· W7146208018 on OpenAlexaff
Kazutaka Takechi

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersResearch Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry
KeywordsHeteroscedasticityTobit modelEstimationGravity model of tradeBilateral tradeLeast-squares function approximationAggregate (composite)Exchange rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate trade costs under large zero trade by using daily data on agricultural goods trade within a country. Because of the nature of daily data, there is a prominent zero daily trade between regions and daily delivery is subject to noisy demand and supply shocks, which tends to create heteroskedasticity of the data. Hence, we use Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood (PPML) to estimate gravity model and investigate non-linear nature of trade costs. Empirical analysis shows a statistically significant, but economically subtle non-linearity in trade costs. We also aggregate daily data to monthly level to examine whether shocks are smoothed and thus those impacts are dampened. Our estimation shows that the difference is minor. Comparison of the results with other estimation methods such as the least squares of linear-in-log model and various Tobit procedures is also conducted. There is a large difference in the results between simple least squares and PPML, suggesting the significant heteroskedasticity. We also calculate outward and inward multilateral resistance terms to derive the incidence of trade costs and find that a large portion of trade costs is the buyers' burden.

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)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.007

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)French-language works237,207