La productivite du travail dans les etablissements de fabrication au Canada sous controle canadien et etranger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La presente etude utilise des donnees pour etudier les gains de la productivite du travail observes chez les etablissements sous controle canadien et etranger dans le secteur de la fabrication pour la periode de 1973 a 1993. Elle examine aussi les ecarts de productivite du travail que peuvent presenter les petits et grands etablissements et les secteurs industriels et la facon dont ils ont evolue avec le temps. L'analyse se compose de trois parties. La premiere examine le lien entre la main-d'oeuvre et la production, plus precisement la tendance dans differents sous-groupes a utiliser une main-d'oeuvre marginale a court et a long terme. La volatilite a ce titre est moins importante dans les etablissements sous controle etranger. La deuxieme partie examine la croissance de la productivite moyenne du travail chez les memes groupes. Ici, les etablissements sous controle etranger affichent des taux de croissance plus eleves. Enfin, dans la derniere partie, nous cherchons a decouvrir si les taux de croissance pour les grands et petits etablissements sous controle canadien et etranger recelent des tendances quelconques et si ces ecarts se sont amplifies au fil des ans.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".