MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167925360 · doi:10.1080/00036846.2010.522522

What affects MFP in the long-run? Evidence from Canadian industries

2011· article· en· W2167925360 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Danny Leung, Yi Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsBank of CanadaStatistics Canada
FundersInfrastructure Canada
KeywordsOpenness to experienceOutsourcingEconomicsProductivityInformation and Communications TechnologyInvestment (military)Error correction modelPanel dataCapital equipmentShort runEconometricsIndustrial organizationInternational tradeInternational economicsMacroeconomicsCointegrationBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data on 12 Canadian industries for 1976–2003, this study employs a dynamic panel error correction model to establish the relative importance of potential determinants of Multifactor Productivity (MFP). The model restricts the long run coefficients of these factors to be the same across industries, but allows industry heterogeneity in the short-run coefficients. After controlling for capacity utilization, Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) capital, outsourcing and global trade openness are found to have a statistically significant positive effect on MFP. The long run impact of ICT is small, but its recent contribution to MFP growth is sizeable for some industries, possibly reflecting the delayed benefits of the ICT investment surge in the late 1990s due to adjustment costs. Global trade openness and industry outsourcing generally raises MFP.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.131 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied EconomicsSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207