Growth and business cycle in Argentina. A long-run approach, 1870–2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to focus deeply on the short term to explain the relative long-term evolution of the Argentinian economy in the long and the short term. Design/methodology/approach The study of the long-term evolution of the Argentine economy and identifying the moment in which it began to lose ground compared to other developed economies, such as Australia and Canada, constitutes the central axis of the historiography of this country. However, an additional problem presented by the Argentine economy is its high volatility. For this reason, the long term should be influenced by the short term, an issue that requires a more detailed study of the cyclical behavior and a deep analysis of the relationship between the long and the short term. Findings The results obtained point to a cyclical development that influences the long-term evolution and, therefore, explains Argentina’s convergence process with Australia and Canada. Frequent deep busts and short booms characterize the Argentine cycle, offsetting its long-term growth potential. Originality/value Although the long term has been profusely studied in Argentina, the short term has not been analyzed to the same extent, which is surprising given the extreme volatility of this economy (Prebisch, 1950). The studies performed on economic cycles have always been partial, disconnected from the long term and carried out without much technical rigor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".