MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145684798

Sensitivity of Capital Stock and Multifactor Productivity Estimates to Depreciation Assumptions: A Canada-U.S. Comparison

2010· article· en· W2145684798 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jianmin Tang, Someshwar Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsStatistics CanadaInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepreciation (economics)EconomicsEconometricsProductivityStock (firearms)Sensitivity (control systems)Capital formationHuman capitalMacroeconomicsFinancial capitalGeographyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides consistent estimates for capital stock and multifactor productivity (MFP) for Canada and the United States across major industries for the 1987-2007 period. For this purpose, capital stock estimates are developed for Canadian and U.S. industries using the same asset depreciation rates (either from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis or from Statistics Canada) for the two countries. The results show that on an hours worked basis Canadian industries invest more in total capital than their U.S. counterparts. This situation reflects much greater investment in structures, with less in machinery and equipment (including information and communications technologies). The results imply that all of the Canada-U.S. labour productivity gap arises from the multifactor productivity gap.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207