MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003564663 · doi:10.1080/21665095.2020.1717362

Effects of economic growth, foreign direct investment and internet use on child health outcomes: empirical evidence from South Africa

2020· article· en· W3003564663 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Salahuddin, Nick Vink, Nicholas Ralph, Jeff Gow

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment Studies Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityGeorge Brown College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentThe InternetEmpirical evidenceEconomicsBusinessMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the effects of economic growth and foreign direct investment (FDI) on child health outcomes measured by Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) and Child Mortality Rate Under 5 (CMRU5) with several control variables such as corruption, inequality and HIV among others. It analyzes South Africa's annual time series data for the period 1985–2016. As variables were found with mixed order of integration, Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) model is applied to determine cointegration and estimate short-run and long-run coefficients.Results indicate that economic growth and FDI have negative significant effects on both indicators of child health outcomes in both the short run and the long run. This implies that both economic growth and FDI contribute towards reducing IMR and CMRU5 in South Africa and thus help improve child health outcomes. Toda and Yamamoto (TY) causality test confirms causal association between these variables. Policy implications are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.523
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.022 · 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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment Studies ResearchSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207