MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1571437176

Global Competitiveness and Canadian Sectoral/Regional Labour Productivity Differences

2003· article· en· W1571437176 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
F.J. Arcelus, Patrick J. Doran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative International Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityInefficiencyData envelopment analysisEconomicsTotal factor productivityScale (ratio)Economic geographyLabour economicsAgricultural economicsEconomic growthGeographyMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper evaluates the extent to which the decrease in total factor productivity growth that is alleged to have occurred in the last few years is also reflected in corresponding decreases in labour productivity growth, among key provinces and sectors of the Canadian economy. The analysis is based upon non-parametric productivity comparisons, for the 1984-1998 period. Data envelopment analysis is the methodological tool selected for the measurement of total factor productivity and hence of operational effectiveness to assess the extent to which sectoral productivity differences across Canadian regions represents a barometer of global competitiveness. The evidence indicates that labour productivity is growing. Factors associated with economies of scale appear to be the main source of inefficiency, as expected in a spatial setting. These inefficiencies are reflected mostly in increasing returns to scale, which enhances the competitiveness potential of the regions' economic base and of the industries in their midst.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative International ManagementSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207