MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Military Expenditures and Income Inequality

2018· book-chapter· en· W2886928466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Buhari Doğan, Muhlis Can, Osman Değer

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in public policy and administration (APPA) book series · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCointegrationEconomic inequalityGini coefficientEconomicsIncome distributionInequalityDemographic economicsContext (archaeology)Distribution (mathematics)Sample (material)EconometricsDevelopment economicsGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regardless of their level of developments, the income distribution problem is one of the most important economic and social problems the countries face. In recent years, scholars have performed multiple studies to determine the factors affecting income distribution. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the impact of military expenditures on income inequality in a sample of North American countries (the USA, Canada, and Mexico), within the context of the Kuznets curve. The study covers between 1995-2013. In unit root Peseran approach, in cointegration analysis, Durbin-Hausmann approach were employed. The findings show that the coefficient of the military expenditures series is positive and the coefficient of square of the military expenditures is negative. This situation shows that military expenditures first increase and then reduce income inequality. Findings indicate that there is an inverse “U” relationship between military expenditures and income inequality. Moreover, it has been detected that as economic growth increases income inequality decreases.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in public policy and administration (APPA) book seriesSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207