MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167269466 · doi:10.3233/jem-130375

Thinking and growing: Towards a reconciliation of exogenous and endogenous growth theories

2013· article· en· W2167269466 on OpenAlexaff
René Durand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic and Social Measurement · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsPublic Works and Government Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndogenous growth theoryEconomicsEndogenyNeoclassical economicsGrowth theoryPositive economicsMathematical economicsEconomic growthMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endogenous growth models consider the stock of R&D (or knowledge) both as a paid input and as an indicator of technical progress. It is shown in this paper that this is inconsistent with core economic theory. In addition, growth eventually stalls in these models unless one assumes increasing returns to scale in all inputs or allows for some exogenous technical progress to occur. This paper shows that neither of these assumptions are necessary to obtain sustained endogenous growth when inputs are properly defined and when a new input is introduced that we call thinking.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.130 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic and Social MeasurementSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207