MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162271398 · doi:10.1111/1467-8446.00065

The Savings Rate Debate: Does the Dependency Hypothesis Hold for Australia and Canada?

2000· article· en· W2162271398 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Economic History Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDependency ratioBoomBaby boomCointegrationEconomicsShort runPopulationDemographic economicsWork (physics)Development economicsMonetary economicsEconometricsDemographyEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Australia and Canada have both experienced a long‐run increase in aggregate savings rates over the past century from below 10 per cent to rates exceeding 20 per cent. Two recent studies have concluded that demographic change played the predominant role in driving this long‐run trend for both nations, one of which implies that a declining child dependency burden caused savings rates to increase over time. New results obtained by using a cointegration approach show that savings rates were driven by increases in real income in the long run. In the short run, increases in the working‐age population in Canada increased the savings rate. In Australia, baby booms and busts occurred simultaneously with savings booms and busts. Contrary to recent work, there is no significant evidence to support a child dependency burden on savings for Australia or Canada over the last century.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.189 · 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