MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980546320 · doi:10.5539/ass.v6n11p256

Do Female Enrolment Rates Cause Economic Growth in Pakistan?

2010· article· en· W1980546320 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khalid Zaman, Muhammad Mushtaq Khan, Mehboob Ahmad, Waseem Ikram

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualCausality (physics)Granger causalityEconomicsContext (archaeology)EconometricsOrder (exchange)Real gross domestic productDemographic economicsGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been much discussion on the relationship between education and economic growth. A few studies have examined the increasing trend of female enrolment in educational institutions and economic growth. The objective of this paper is to empirically investigate four alternatives but equally plausible hypotheses. These are: i) GDP cause female enrolment proxies (the conventional view), ii) Female enrolment proxies cause GDP, iii) There is a bi-directional causality between the two variables and iv) Both variables are causality independent. In order to find the relationship between the two variables set, a time series Co-integration and Granger Causality Tests have been employed separately. Secondary data pertaining to Pakistan from 1966 - 2008 has been used for analysis. The empirical results moderately support the conventional view that GDP has significant long-run casual effect on the female enrolment proxies in Pakistan. The present study supports the unidirectional causality relationship between the GDP and female enrolment in the specific context of Pakistan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207