MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066383986 · doi:10.1108/01443580610706555

Productivity trends in the United States

2006· article· en· W2066383986 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityEconomicsProfit (economics)EconometricsContext (archaeology)OriginalityInstrumental variableVariable (mathematics)MicroeconomicsMacroeconomicsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate productivity growth and technical progress bias in the USA. Design/methodology/approach Following the work of Kohli in 1978 and Diewert and Wales in 1992, the paper estimates output supply and input demand functions in the context of a normalized quadratic (NQ) variable profit function using US data (over a period from 1960 to 2002) on six goods: output, exports, imports, labour, reproducible capital, and fixed capital. Findings Results show that the NQ variable profit function with linear splines works very well and the technique for determining structural breaks is effective. Estimates show that the US productivity rate in the last decade recovered in a stepwise manner, rather than jumped overnight in 1996 (as some previous studies have suggested), and that the US productivity revival after 1995 has been volatile and fragile. Originality/value This paper highlights productivity trends in the USA.

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.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.202 · 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