MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218899712 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n1p229

The Impact of Export Volume and GDP on USA’s Civil Aviation in Between 1980-2012

2015· article· en· W2218899712 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Salih Kalaycı, Sabire Yazıcı

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivil aviationCointegrationAviationOrder (exchange)Johansen testTest (biology)Volume (thermodynamics)EconomicsDimension (graph theory)EconometricsReal gross domestic productError correction modelMathematicsEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper assays how the effect of USA’s both export volume and GDP have on civil aviation by implementing econometrical models such as linear regression and Johansen Co-integration tests in order to realize the dimension of its influence. The impact of both export volume and GDP on civil aviation have analyzed between the years 1980 and 2012 in order to make it a parametrical test by using E-Views Programme. According to Johansen cointegration test there is a long term relationship between the variables in between 1980-2012.Furthermore, It has been founded that USA’s export volume and GDP have crucial influence on civil aviation according to the E-Views programme results within the periods of 1980-2012. influence. The impact of both export volume and GDP on civil aviation have analyzed between the years 1980 and 2012 in order to make it a parametrical test by using E-Views Programme. According to Johansen cointegration test there is a long term relationship between the variables in between 1980-2012. Furthermore, It has been founded that USA’s export volume and GDP have crucial influence on civil aviation according to the E-Views programme results within the periods of 1980-2012.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207