MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigation with panel data analysis of the effect on economic growth of employment in agriculture and industrial sector: example of some OECD countries (1993-2017)

2019· article· en· W2955276848 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePressacademia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicUnemployment and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgriculturePanel dataEconomicsSecondary sector of the economyEconomic sectorLabour economicsAgricultural economicsEconomyEconometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose-Economic growth is one of the biggest indicators of the strength of a country. Countries provide economic growth by generating resources with their advanced technology. In this study, for some OECD countries (Germany, Belgium, Canada and Turkey) was investigated effect on the economic growth of the employment in the agriculture and industrial sector using panel data analysis. In the study, annual data were used from the years 1993-2017. Methodology-The data were taken from the official web address of the World Bank. Firstly, the data to be used in the model were examined by "unit root tests" to determine whether these series are stationary. According to the results of the unit root test applied to the levels of the variables, it was seen that the series were not stationary but contained unit root. For this reason, the primary differences of the series were taken and found to be stationary. Then the co-integration test was performed. Findings-The results of the cointegration tests performed indicate that there is a cointegration and there is a long-term relationship between the variables. In the study, classical, fixed effect and random effective regression models were used. The Hausman test was applied to determine the correct regression to be used, resulting in the appropriate model being the random effect model. Conclusion-After the Haussmann test, the most appropriate model was obtained as a random effect model.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.152 · 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