MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517235943

The Growth Story: Canada's Long-run Economic Performance and Prospects

2003· article· en· W1517235943 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Peter Nicholson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational productivity monitor · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityPrime ministerEconomicsHuman capitalInvestment (military)Balanced scorecardStar (game theory)PoliticsDevelopment economicsEconomic policyPolitical scienceEconomic growthManagementLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this lead article, Peter Nicholson, who until recently served as advisor to the Secretary General at the OECD and is currently serving as policy advisor to the Prime Minister, Paul Martin, discusses the long-run economic performance, prospects in Canada, and policy priorities based on the framework and insights that emerged from the recent study of economic growth released by the OECD. He argues that Canada has performed remarkably well since the mid-1990s, and that by the pro-growth policy prescriptions developed by the OECD, Canada is doing most things right. However, Nicholson points out that our productivity gap relative to the United States is still large and growing and that finding ways to increase productivity growth is an increasing social and political necessity. Nicholson develops a scorecard on Canada's economic performance based on a three-star rating scheme. He gives Canada three stars for sound macro policies, human capital, and exposure to trade; two stars for productive investment; and one star, or perhaps a little better, for innovation. Despite this strong performance, Nicholson cautions against complacency, particularly given the demographic challenge the country will be facing in the years to come.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational productivity monitorSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207