Business cycles of India, developed and developing economies: A test of co-movements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at casting some light on the co-movements of the Indian economy vis-a-vis some of the developed and developing economies as a contribution to the constant debate on independence of emerging economies business cycles from those of the advanced nations. An attempt has been made to test the proposition of India's independence against the developed group consisting, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, U.K. and U.S.A. and the developing group consisting, Argentina, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Mexico, Malaysia and Qatar. The annual data from 1970 to 2016 has been sourced from World Development Indicators on nominal GDP for calculating output gaps and Euclidean distance for graphical analysis and the econometric analysis for testing the hypothesis. The graphical plots led to the refutation of independence hypothesis for all the economies and the econometric analysis also reveals the presence of business cycle co-movements between India and Australia, Canada, Italy, Great Britain and United States of America from the developed world and for Brazil, China and Qatar from the developing world.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it