MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2268801815

La révision des comptes de productivité multifactorielle

2014· preprint· fr· W2268801815 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John R. Baldwin, Wulong Gu, Ryan J. MacDonald, Weimin Wang, Beiling Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2014
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhysicsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le present rapport decrit les revisions apportees a la mesure de la croissance de la productivite multifactorielle (PMF) et aux variables connexes dans le secteur des entreprises et pour differentes industries. Ces revisions ont decoule de la revision historique du Systeme de comptabilite nationale du Canada (SCNC) diffusee le 1 er octobre 2012, des revisions apportees aux comptes de la productivite du travail du 12 octobre 2012, ainsi que des modifications apportees a l?estimation de l?entree de capital en vue d?accroitre son uniformite dans les estimations de la croissance de la PMF par industrie. Le Programme de la productivite multifactorielle produit des indices de la PMF et des mesures connexes (production, entree de capital, entree de travail et entrees intermediaires) pour le secteur des entreprises, les differents sous secteurs economiques et les industries qui les composent. Le Programme de la PMF ventile la croissance de la productivite du travail en fonction de ses principaux determinants : l?intensite du capital (variations du capital par heure travaillee), l?investissement dans le capital humain et la PMF, qui englobe le changement technologique, l?innovation organisationnelle et les economies d?echelle.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.188
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.188
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.288
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicEconomic Growth and Productivity→French-language works237,207→