MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044512758 · doi:10.1215/00182702-2009-019

Trevor Swan And The Neoclassical Growth Model

2008· article· en· W2044512758 on OpenAlexaff
Robert W. Dimand, Barbara J. Spencer

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory of Political Economy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsBalance of paymentsGrowth modelPublicationKeynesian economicsHistoryEconomic historyMacroeconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The independent contributions of Robert Solow and the Australian economist Trevor Swan in developing the neoclassical growth model are sometimes recognized by reference to the “Solow-Swan” model, but often reference is made only to the “Solow” model. Both Solow (1956) and Swan (1956) created a simple, convenient, and powerful apparatus for finding the steady-state growth path of a one-commodity world. This paper examines the differences and similarities between Swan's and Solow's analysis and diagrams, the reasons why Solow's version received more attention, and, drawing on Swan's unpublished papers, the place of Swan's growth model in his intellectual development.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistory of Political EconomySame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207