MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596396976 · doi:10.22610/jebs.v3i1.255

External Resources and Savings Rate: A Pooled Mean Group Analysis for Developing Countries

2011· article· en· W2596396976 on OpenAlexaff
Anupam Das

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economics and Behavioral Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEconomic Growth and Development
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansDeveloping countryRecessionMiddle EastSample (material)EconomicsPanel dataEast AsiaInvestment (military)BusinessInternational economicsDevelopment economicsEconomic growthGeographyMacroeconomicsChinaEconometricsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine the effect of external resources on savings dynamics, this paper employs the pooled mean group (PMG) technique to a large sample of 65 developing countries over the period of 1970 to 2009. The panel results for all the countries together suggest that approximately 33% of domestic savings are displaced by the inflow of external resources. Similar results are also found when regional panels (SubSaharan Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean) are estimated. Additionally, foreign aid is found to have a stronger effect on domestic savings than private financial flows. All types of external flows are insignificant in determining the savings ratio in the Middle East and North Africa. These results have important implications for developing countries, in particular during the period of global recession. Specific attention to these results is necessary in developing countries to ensure a successful mobilization of domestic resources to support existing investment projects and other development programs.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economics and Behavioral StudiesSame topicEconomic Growth and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207