MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123106291 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v3n3p149

Causal Relationship among Education Expenditure, Health Expenditure and GDP: A Case Study for Bangladesh

2011· article· en· W2123106291 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Md. Mostafizur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEconomicsCausality (physics)Granger causalityHuman capitalInvestment (military)Capital expenditureAggregate expenditureEconometricsDemographic economicsPublic economicsEconomic growthFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigated the causal relationship among health expenditure, education expenditure and GDP for Bangladesh. First we present the extension form of the augmented Solow Growth model by including education expenditure and health expenditure as education and health capital. In our empirical study we used time series data for the period 1990 to 2009. From the ECM methodology we found that an including of health and education expenditure as an investment in health and education capital improve the significance of the coefficient of human and physical capital in the growth model for Bangladesh. Secondly, we find out the causal relationship among these variables by Var Granger Causality test. From the empirical study we found the existence of bidirectional causality from education expenditure to GDP and also from education expenditure to health expenditure and only unidirectional causality is obtained from health expenditure to GDP. This paper will provide a significant policy guideline to the policy maker.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207