MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603496255

Partial versus Total Factor Productivity: Assessing Resource Use in Natural Resource Industries in Canada

2016· preprint· en· W2603496255 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander G. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityTotal factor productivityPartial productivityProductivity modelIndex (typography)Production (economics)Resource (disambiguation)Resource productivityNatural resourceMultifactor productivityEconometricsEconomicsEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsComputer scienceResource allocationMicroeconomicsMacroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A partial productivity measure relates output to a single input. Total factor productivity (or TFP) relates an index of output to a composite index of all inputs. This report discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each type of productivity measure from theoretical and methodological perspectives. Different productivity measures may be useful for different analytical purposes, and no single measure provides a complete picture of an industry's productivity performance. The report then presents estimates of TFP and a suite of partial productivity measures for a set of natural resource-related industries in Canada. The three forestry products industries and the crop and animal production industry exhibited the best productivity performance over the 1990-2012 period across a variety of productivity measures, while oil and gas extraction and mining experienced the worst productivity performance.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207