A Detailed Analysis of Newfoundland and Labrador's Productivity Performance, 1997-2018
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
The main goal of this report is to describe and explain the trends in productivity in Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as trends in the variables used in the calculation of productivity, including output, labour input, and capital input. The main take-away from the report is the importance of the oil and gas sector to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. That sector has been responsible for most of Newfoundland and Labrador's economic growth, and now accounts for the largest share of the province’s business sector value added among 2-digit NAICS subsectors, even though it employed only 3.8 per cent of the province’s business sector workers in 2018. Due to the size of the mining and oil and gas extraction sector, its productivity performance strongly affects the performance of the overall business sector, which continues to represent a major challenge for the province. However, looking at the business sector excluding mining and oil and gas, productivity growth does fare better. The data can be split in two periods. Driven by the mining and oil and gas extraction sector, Newfoundland and Labrador’s overall productivity experienced impressive growth from 1997 to 2007, with real business sector productivity advancing at a compound annual rate of 6.0 per cent. The situation changed dramatically after 2007 when oil and gas productivity plummeted. Real business sector productivity in the province declined during the 2007-2018 period at a rate of 1.2 per cent per year
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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