MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969330097

New BEA-BLS Estimates of the Sources of U.S. Economic Growth between 1987 and 2016

2019· article· en· W2969330097 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Corby Garner, J.P. Harper, Thomas F. Howells, Matt Russell, Jon D. Samuels

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational productivity monitor · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsTertiary sector of the economyCapital (architecture)Labour economicsService (business)Manufacturing sectorProduction (economics)Aggregate incomeIncome distributionEconomyMacroeconomicsInequalityGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes new historical statistics for the BEA-BLS integrated industry-level production account. The dataset includes KLEMS and integrated MFP measures that are consistent with the official BEA GDP by Industry statistics and now covers 1987-2016. The most important source of economic growth over the period was the accumulation of capital input. More than three quarters of the contribution of capital was driven by the accumulation of capital inputs in the service sector. The next most important source of economic growth over the period was the accumulation of labour input. Growth in labour input in the services sectors accounted for almost all the economy-wide contribution of labor input. MFP growth accounted for about twenty percent of aggregate economic growth. Of this, the manufacturing sector contributed more than half of this growth, but almost all of this was due to growth in MFP of the computer electronic products industry. Finally, the new dataset shows that the decline in the aggregate income share paid to labour in the manufacturing sector was mostly due to a decrease in the share of income paid to workers without a college degree. In contrast, workers with a college degree accounted for most of the increase in the income share of labour in the service sectors.

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)0.000
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 score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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