MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594499212 · doi:10.1016/j.rfe.2017.02.002

Is there a link between economic growth and insurance and banking sector activities in the G‐20 countries?

2017· article· en· W2594499212 on OpenAlex

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

VenueReview of Financial Economics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobeGranger causalityOrder (exchange)Financial sector developmentBusinessDeveloping countryEconomicsCausality (physics)Economic sectorInsurance industryFinancial sectorFinancial systemEconomyFinanceEconomic growthActuarial scienceEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rapid technological development over the last three decades has enabled different sectors of the economy to be seamlessly integrated. This has had an important spill‐over impact on the wealth of countries across the globe. In this paper we examine the inter‐linkages between the banking sector and the insurance industry on the economic growth of the G‐20 countries between 1980 and 2014. Using the vector auto‐regression model and the Granger causality test, the study shows that in the long run, developments in the banking sector and insurance industry have had a significant impact on the economic growth of the G‐20 countries. In the short term, the inter‐relationships between the three factors prove to be more complex in that they differ by countries in different stages of development. Based on the empirical findings, this paper discusses the policies and strategies policy makers and banks and insurance companies should have in place in order to create sustained economic growth in an increasingly inter‐connected world.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.241
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