MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942341854

Canadian Productivity Growth, Secular Stagnation, and Technological Change

2018· article· en· W2942341854 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michelle Alexopoulos and Jon Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational productivity monitor · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic stagnationProductivityTechnological changeSlowdownEconomicsCommercializationTechnical changeTotal factor productivityMacroeconomicsEconomic growthBusinessPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we show first that the recent slowdown in productivity growth in Canada, similar to that in the United States, can be attributed at least in part to the fall-off in the commercialization of new technologies. Using our bookbased indicators of technological change, we are able to show that this is true for both aggregate measures of technology and, at the disaggregate level, for mechanical/manufacturing and electrical technologies. Our results also indicate that the productivity impact of the slowdown in Canada is much greater on goods-producing industries than it is on services. Second, our latest results suggest that, contrary to the concerns of some that we are entering a new period of secular stagnation characterized by low productivity and economic growth, we are actually on the threshold of significant new technological breakthroughs, associated largely, but not only, with advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. Provided that Canadian firms adopt these innovations, we can anticipate not a continuation of slow productivity growth but an acceleration.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational productivity monitorSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207