MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526093693 · doi:10.15355/epsj.11.2.45

A dynamic panel analysis using SIPRI’s extended military expenditure data: The case of Middle Power nations

2016· article· en· W2526093693 on OpenAlex
Mohamed Douch, Binyam Solomon

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Economics of Peace and Security Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National DefenceRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment expenditureEconomicsProxy (statistics)Panel dataEconometricsRobustness (evolution)Middle powerLow and middle income countriesMacroeconomicsForeign policyDeveloping countryEconomic growthStatisticsMathematicsPolitical sciencePublic finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study employs SIPRI’s extended military expenditure dataset to estimate a dynamic panel analysis of Middle Powers’ defense posture. The dynamic approach, particularly the Auto Regressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) approach, permits simultaneous, but separate, assessment of short- and long-run effects of a particular variable on military expenditure. We verify the robustness of earlier findings on Middle Power nations’ defense posture. In particular, their military expenditure tends to an income elasticity of greater than one indicating that military power is, at least in part, a status good. In addition, Middle Powers react to threat variables that proxy global instability, such as nuclear power proliferation, and they use foreign aid as a complementary policy tool. Competing demands for funds lead to significant tradeoffs between military and nonmilitary government spending.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.203 · 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