MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134191375 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v1n1p49

Foreign Direct Investment Effect on Economic Growth: Evidence from Guinea Republic in West Africa

2010· article· en· W2134191375 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Keita Mohamed Lamine, Yang Da-kai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentGranger causalityPromotion (chess)EconomicsInvestment (military)International economicsGovernment (linguistics)Causality (physics)Development economicsMacroeconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to understand the contribution of Foreign Direct Investment on Guinea Republic’s Economic growth. The Granger Causality Test is used to study the relationship between FDI and Economic Growth proxies. Our results show that the level of FDI is still low in order to promote economic growth for the Guinea Republic. Indeed, the Granger Causality Test demonstrated that the GDP can promote the level of foreign direct investment, which means that if the level of GDP increases in Guinea, FDI will also follow. Some other factors as EMPLOYMENT can promote FDI, thus the Guinean government has to play the key role of employment promotion to attract investments from abroad. In other way, we found also that school enrollment can increase the GDP and indirectly the FDI. Actually, the economic situation of Guinea has to be ameliorating by policies and regulations, which can attract and protect investors, even to attract Guinean Diaspora’s investment.

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)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207