MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112277545 · doi:10.1111/1540-5982.00122

Is the AK Model Still Alive? The Long-run Relation Between Growth and Investment Re-examined

2002· article· en· W2112277545 on OpenAlexaff
Dajin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsInvestment (military)Relation (database)Panel dataShort runEmpirical evidenceEndogenous growth theoryEconometricsMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsHuman capitalEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To explore the empirical validity of -type endogenous growth models, the long-run relation between growth and investment is examined. Contrary to Jones's (1995) findings, the broadly measured rate of investment exerts a long-run positive effect on the growth rate. This result is supported by evidence from twenty-four OECD countries, 1950-92, and five major industrialized countries, 1870-1987. The panel-data evidence from OECD countries also supports an extended model based on the Uzawa (1965) / Lucas (1988) two-sector model with transitional dynamics. These findings suggest that the long-run relation between growth and investment is consistent the model.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207