MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765913747 · doi:10.1111/meca.12192

Trend and business cycles with <i>external markets</i>: Non‐capacity generating semi‐autonomous expenditures and effective demand

2017· article· en· W2765913747 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Fiebiger, Marc Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueMetroeconomica · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsEffective demandInvestment (military)MacroDistribution (mathematics)Macro levelEndogenous growth theoryIncome distributionMacroeconomicsMicroeconomicsMonetary economicsMarket economyHuman capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Global Financial Crisis has underlined the importance of developments in the household sector to explaining macro patterns. Some recent papers have discussed the role of non‐capacity generating semi‐autonomous expenditures in growth theory. This literature ties together several aspects of heterodox thought: growth and distribution; the Sraffian supermultiplier; Duesenberry's relative income hypothesis; the endogenous money approach and Kalecki–Luxemburg external markets. The basic message is that non‐wage sources of effective demand, based on mortgage and consumer credit, can play a key role in inducing capacity investment and driving long‐run output growth. This article gives a broad overview of the role of financed‐induced semi‐autonomous expenditures in growth, cycles and crises, and thus criticizes some of the previous approaches that claim to mimic actual cycles while abstracting from these crucial determinants of economic activity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations45
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetroeconomicaSame topicEconomic Theory and PolicyFrench-language works237,207