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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I calculate TFP ratios for a sample of Canadian manufacturers relative to their American counterparts on an annual basis throughout most of the twentieth century. The data used to calculate these ratios are drawn from both industry‐level and firm‐level statistical sources. I find that, in contrast to the relative labour productivity evidence in the literature, when TFP is used as the measuring stick, there is virtually no evidence of consistent and substantial relative technical inefficiency on behalf of the Canadian manufacturers represented in my sample. JEL Classification: D24, N60 Dans ce mémoire, l'auteur calcule les ratios de la productivité totale des facteurs de production (PTF) des manufacturiers canadiens par rapport à celle de leurs collègues américains sur une base annuelle pour la plus grande partie du vingtième siècle. Les données utilisées sont tirées des sources statistiques tant au niveau de l'industrie que de l'entreprise. On montre que, contrairement à ce que suggère la littérature spécialisée à propos de la productivité relative du travail, quand la PTF est utilisée comme étalon de mesure, on ne trouve vraiment pas vraiment de résultats qui suggéreraient une inefficacité technique relative substantielle et persistante des manufacturiers canadiens de l'échantillon.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it