Canada's Recent Productivity Record and Capital Accumulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, Someshwar Rao, Jiamin Tang and Weimin Wang of Industry Canada examine the impact of capital accumulation on Canada's recent productivity record. A key finding is that the widening of the Canada-U.S. labour productivity gap in both the business sector and in manufacturing in the second half of the 1990s was largely due to the widening of the capital intensity gap between the two countries. Indeed, the authors find that in the business sector multifactor productivity growth in the two countries was virtually identical at around 2 per cent per year in the 1995-2000 period. This situation is explained by the marked slowdown in the pace of capital intensity growth in Canada after 1995. This development reflected the increased cost of capital relative to labour in Canada, in turn the result of higher prices for investment goods because of the depreciation of the Canadian dollar and low wage increases due to high unemployment. With the recent appreciation of the Canadian dollar and the expected decline in unemployment, the authors project in the medium-term a narrowing of Canada's capital intensity gap with the United States and hence a reduction in the labour productivity gap.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".