MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026721873 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v6n12p192

Financialization Process and the Outcomes in Developed Countries

2014· article· en· W2026721873 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muharrem Afşar, Aslı Afşar, Oytun Meçi̇k

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGazi Üniversitesi
KeywordsFinancializationEconomicsGlobalizationFinancial marketPanel dataEconomic systemFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the 1980s, the neo-liberal economic policies of the Washington Consensus paradigm revealed by the market mechanism have become the dominant system. The globalization process of the world economy and the policies highlighted the concept of financialization. The balance shifted from production to finance in the financialization process and financial capital accumulation has become dominant and, local markets were opened to international capital flows. Thus the financial markets, the size of the institutions and processes have shown a significant increase in the entire world, particularly in the developed countries. This article aims to empirically explore the effects of financialization in the developed countries. For this purpose, current data were used in the paper to analyze these effects. In the paper, the process of financialization in the G8 countries was examined using data for a period of 19 years (1990–2008). The effects of financialization on GDP and employment have been analyzed by using panel data models. Findings suggest that there are important impacts of financial sector on GDP and total employment.

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)0.003
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207