MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059280293 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v6n8p173

Financial Development and Economic Growth: Evidence from Lebanon

2014· article· en· W2059280293 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wadad Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEconomic Growth and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsGranger causalityEconomicsCausality (physics)Financial sector developmentMonetary economicsPositive relationshipMacroeconomicsFinancial marketFinancial sectorFinanceEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to determine whether a relationship exists between financial development and economic growth in Lebanon. The investigation of this link is carried out within a VECM framework over the period 1972–2012. This study uses the VECM-based Granger-causality test to provide empirical evidence of the causal relationship between financial development and economic growth. The evidence suggests that the credit market is still underdeveloped in this country and its contribution to economic growth is limited owing to a lack of financial depth. Therefore, the focus is on the banking sector to measure the financial development. The findings indicate the presence of a positive relationship between financial development and economic growth in the short run that is accompanied by bidirectional Granger causality between these variables. However this relationship is found to be insignificant in the long run. Moreover, the results indicate that the efficiency of the banking sector has an important role in the Lebanese economic growth.

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)0.001
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicEconomic Growth and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207