MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2104036432 · doi:10.7202/601024ar

Vers une mesure de la progressivité technologique

2009· article· en· W2104036432 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marcel Simoneau

Bibliographic record

VenueL Actualité économique · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnological changeReturns to scaleEconometricsTechnical changeFunction (biology)DecompositionScale (ratio)EconomicsMarginal costProduction (economics)Variable (mathematics)Constant (computer programming)MathematicsComputer scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the technological progress is measured by the relative change in total unit costs when input prices are constant and when the scale of production is optimal, that is where marginal cost intersects with average cost. The conceptual framework for a measurement of technological change is presented in the first section. Optimal scale and minimum average cost are therein illustrated, to elaborate, afterwards, on the decomposition of technical change in three major components. The approach to analyze the time pattern of substitution possibilities is given attention to as well as the analysis of heterotheticity and of various types of technological biases. The second section deals briefly with the econometrics of technology estimation on a sectoral basis. The technology is modelled through a "translog" cost function, that proves to be a second order approximation of any cost function. It is worthwhile to point out that this function may exhibit timevarying substitution elasticities as well as variable returns to scale. A brief discussion of the data used follows. The methodology was applied to Electrical and Chemical product industries, at the three digits level. In the third section, the empirical results are analyzed. They allowed to characterize the substitution profile, the scale and technological biases. They lead, also, to a decomposition analysis of technological change in three major components: efficiency effect, scale effect and bias effect. The analysis was related to 16 subsectors in the Canadian manufacturing, over the period 1961-1976.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL Actualité économique→Same topicEconomic Growth and Productivity→French-language works237,207→