MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1568275783

The Empirical Study on the Different Effects on Urban and Rural Consumption by Urbanization in China

2015· article· en· W1568275783 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiuli Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationConsumption (sociology)ChinaGranger causalityEconomicsEconomic growthAgricultural economicsRural areaEconomic geographyDemographic economicsDevelopment economicsGeographyEconometricsPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumption and urbanization mainly by transferring labor force are important variables in China. The article puts the two into analysis to consider the quality of the urbanization, selecting the data of urbanization rate, average consumption of urban and rural residents, using econometric tools of co-integration analysis, ECM and Granger causality test, and after that the paper finds the effects on urban and rural consumption by urbanization are extremely different: The urbanization rate has a long-term equilibrium relationship with urban residents’ consumption, but does not have this relationship with rural one. The dynamic relationship between the urban consumption and urbanization is that the former makes the latter rise up, then the two promote each other, and finally the latter makes the former go up remarkably. Further more, although urbanization influences urban residents’ consumption obviously, yet there is a delayed effect. So we should shift the production-factor-oriented urbanization model to people-oriented one, boost the supply of public goods, focus on the development of agricultural sector, increase the income of rural households to expand the consumption of rural residents and improve their qualities of lives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicRegional Economics and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207