MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174187247 · doi:10.1142/s0217590816500077

ANALYZING THE TFP PERFORMANCE OF CHINESE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES

2016· article· en· W2174187247 on OpenAlexaff
Kui‐Wai Li

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Singapore Economic Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoGlobal Affairs Canada
FundersCity University of Hong Kong
KeywordsTotal factor productivityBusinessIndustrial organizationEconomicsProductivityMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After nearly four decades of rapid growth, the China economy is faced with various challenges. The 2008 crisis would have served as the last straw as China experienced falls and volatilities in industrial output, export and foreign direct investment. The new policy focuses on expansion of domestic consumption and rebalancing. Given the unreliability of Chinese products, there is a need to rebuild product acceptability and market confidence. The structure of industrial enterprises, especially the small- and medium-sized enterprises, will play a crucial role in the next phase of development in the China economy. This paper uses the data on Chinese industrial enterprises to estimate the productivity performance of enterprises across regions and industries. The discussion is placed on the impact of the 2008 financial crisis on the China economy and industries enterprises. By using a simple methodology and OLS regression analysis on the estimation of total factor productivity, the empirical results show that SMEs and non-SMEs do perform differently in different industries and across regions, but SMEs suffered more than non-SMEs since the 2008 crisis.

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)0.002
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Singapore Economic ReviewSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207