Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We apply modern ideas‐oriented growth accounting, based on the semi‐endogenous growth theory of Jones (2002), to compare the sources of Canadian and US economic growth between 1981–2014. This framework allows us to distinguish between transition dynamics and steady state growth as well as quantify their respective contributions. We find that the bulk of the 1.1 percentage points total average Canadian growth rate of output per hour has been due to transitional factors, mainly capital intensity and domestic human capital growth driven by educational attainment. The growth in excess ideas (total ideas growth minus steady state growth) has contributed a small share of 0.06 percentage points. Two features stand out in comparison to the US growth experience over the same period. First, over a full percentage point of the average US growth of 1.64% is due to excess ideas growth. Second, the “constant growth view” that reconciles large sources of transitional growth with relatively stable average growth is not supported in Canada. We estimate a relatively low elasticity of output with respect to world research effort as the reason behind the small share of R&D‐oriented sources of Canadian growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".