MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1472575799

Empirical Study on Saving and Investment Relation in China: 1952¡ª2011

2015· article· en· W1472575799 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Weiping Li, Guotai Chi, Lan Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceChinaInvestment (military)EconomicsOrder (exchange)Relation (database)Government (linguistics)Measures of national income and outputMacroeconomicsMonetary economicsEconometricsFinancePoliticsGeographyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper empirically studies the relation between the domestic saving and the domestic investment with respect to the GDP national income for China during the 60-year period, 1952--2011. We adapt the method in Feldstein and Horioka (1980) for developed OECD countries to the developing country China, and analyze the change on the relation of national investment proportion and national saving proportion from three different sub-periods according to the national policy changes. We show that the saving proportion series and the investment proportion series in China during 1952--2011 under the first order difference are steady and co-integrated of order one. Due to economic reform in China since 1978, the nonlinear (square-root) cross-section regression is presented from empirical analysis. Furthermore, we specify the openness of the economy, the household saving, corporate and government saving to see the relation change.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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 venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207