MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106673371

Public investment and economic growth in the European Union member states

2008· article· en· W2106673371 on OpenAlexaff
Liliana Donath, Marius Cristian Miloș, Laura Raisa Miloş

Bibliographic record

VenueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPer capitaEuropean unionEconomicsPublic financeCapital expenditureInvestment (military)Public capitalPublic expenditureMember statesFinancePublic economicsQuality (philosophy)PoliticsEconomic policyBusinessPublic investmentMacroeconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of public investments became a very challenging subject for public decision makers since it incorporates the question of state performance, the quality of public finance and their effects on growth.The quality of public finance (QPF) is a multidimensional concept. It may be regarded as representing all the arrangements and operations regarding the financial politics that sustain the macroeconomic objectives, particularly the long-term economic growth. Financial policies at European level highlight the fact that a concentration of the public expenses in areas that stimulate the economic growth and a more efficient use of the public resources are key methods for sustaining the economic growth. The empirical proofs seem to support the assumption according to which certain types of public expenses can supply incentives and other can negatively influence the economic growth. The paper tries to reveal the effects of capital spending on economic growth (GDP per capita) for the European Union member states. The gross domestic product per capita and the capital expenses (functional classification of public expenses - “COFOG”) have been obtained by considering the Eurostat statistics, the measurement unit for the dependent variable and for the independent one is the EURO, while the period of analyze is of 7 years ( 2000-2006)

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.134 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)Same topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207