Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Long‐run economic growth has again become a major focus of economic theory. A perception of technological change as an economic process with externalities has motivated the development of aggregate models that generate different steady‐state growth paths. Economic history has also long been interested in long‐run economic growth. Here, a dialogue is presented between growth theory and the historical literature on the industrial revolution in Britain and America's surge to international economic leadership in the late nineteenth century. In conclusion, economists’ recent thinking about the microeconomics of technological change has provided fruitful material for the economic historian of growth. Unfortunately, the models of endogenous growth, on the other hand, present too aggregated a view of the economy to prove helpful when confronted with the details of economic history. JEL Classification: N0, N1.1 Théorie de la croissance et révolutions industrielles en Grande Bretagne et en Amérique. La croissance économique à long terme est redevenue un point d’intérêt majeur pour la théorie économique. Une perception du changement technologique comme processus économique porteur d’externalités a engendré le développement de modèles agrégés qui génèrent différents sentiers de croissance en régime permanent. L’histoire économique s’intéresse depuis longtemps à la croissance économique à long terme. Ce texte engage le dialogue entre la théorie de la croissance et la littérature historique à propos de la révolution industrielle en Grande Bretagne et de l’émergence de l’Amérique au statut de leader international à la fin du dix‐neuvième siècle. On en arrive à la conclusion que les récents développements dans la pensée économique à propos de la micro‐économie du changement technologique ont produit des résultats utiles pour l’histoire économique de la croissance. Malheureusement, d’autre part, les modèles de croissance endogène présente une vue trop agrégée de l’économie pour s’avérer utile dans l’examen des détails de l’histoire économique.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".