MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606884704 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v8n2p182

Empirical Study of Technological Factors Being Involved in Income Distribution --An Example of Gansu Province

2017· article· en· W2606884704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liqun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNorthwest University for NationalitiesNorthwest University
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Distribution (mathematics)IncentiveHuman capitalIncome distributionTechnological changeEconomicsWork (physics)PhenomenonIgnoranceBusinessEconomic systemIndustrial organizationEconomic growthMicroeconomicsInequalityMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Involvement of technological factors in income distribution according to their contributions is an intrinsic requirement of the market economy, and also an objective requirement for promotion of technological innovations and realization of effective allocation of resources. However, many problems emerged in China's enterprises and public institutions, higher education institutions and research institutes during their growth and development, these problems include: "Insider control", "59 Years Old Phenomenon", Low Work Efficiency and severe brain drain etc. These issues were caused by many factors, one key factor is the incomplete distribution incentive mechanism which is, in fact, an ignorance of the value of human capital. Through field investigation of technological factors involving in income distribution in Gansu Province, this article analyzed related data, had a conclusion and proposed some issues in the distribution mode.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207