MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132461001

Accounting for Growth from A to Z: Review Article on Information Technology and the American Growth Resurgence

2006· article· en· W2132461001 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel E. Sichel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational productivity monitor · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsProductivityGrowth accountingCapital (architecture)Capital goodCapital deepeningNational accountsMacroeconomicsAccountingCapital formationClassical economicsHuman capitalTotal factor productivityEconomyFinancial capitalMarket economyGoods and servicesHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author reviews the book Information Technology and the American Growth Resurgence by Dale Jorgenson, Mun Ho, and Kevin Stiroh, which provides a detailed analysis of the remarkable rebound in productivity and output growth in the last decade. He notes that the book can be considered a “Users’ Guide” to growth accounting and is highly recommended in this regard. The author reviews in an even-handed manner the critiques that have been put forward of the growth accounting methodology presented by Jorgenson et al. His bottom line is that while many of the critiques make valuable points, there is currently no alternative methodology to growth accounting that offers such a comprehensive framework for assessing the sources of economic growth. He also reviews the story put forward by Jorgenson et al. where in the mid-1990s the constant-quality prices of semiconductors fell substantially, leading to rapid declines in the price of Information Technology (IT) capital goods. Firms responded by substituting capital purchases toward IT capital, resulting in a surge in IT capital deepening and labour productivity growth. One limitation of the book is that it provides no analysis of the post-2000 US productivity growth acceleration, which has taken place in a period when rapid IT capital deepening was not occurring.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational productivity monitorSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207