MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092650113 · doi:10.3917/rel.752.0131

AK growth models: new evidence based on fractional integration and breaking trends

2009· article· fr· W2092650113 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juncal Cuñado, Luis A. Gil‐Alana, Fernando Pérez de Gracia

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches économiques de Louvain · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceDictionPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé D’après les modèles de croissance de type AK, un changement permanent du taux d’investissement a des effets permanents sur le taux de croissance d’un pays. Jones ( Quarterly Journal of Economics , 1995, 110, 495-525) confirme cette prédiction en analysant les propriétés des séries temporelles des taux de croissance du PIB et des taux d’investissement pour quinze pays de l’OCDE pour la période 1950-1988. Dans ce papier, nous testons la même hypothèse pour quatre pays de l’OCDE pour un plus longue période (1870-2002 pour le Canada, le Royaume-Uni et les Etats-Unis, et de 1885-2002 pour le Japon). Aussi, au lieu d’utiliser une approche classique basée sur des processus I(0) ou des processus de racine unitaire I(1), nous utilisons une méthodologie basée sur l’intégration fractionnelle. Après avoir examiné l’ordre d’intégration des taux de croissance du PIB et des ratios d’investissement pour les pays mentionnés auparavant, nous ne pouvons pas rejeter la prédiction concernant les « effets de croissance » des modèles de croissance de type AK. En fait, nous ne pouvons rejeter cette prédiction que pour le cas du Royaume-Uni. Classification JEL – C32, O41.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.091 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches économiques de LouvainSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207