MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119329199 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v13n2p15

Effect of Globalization on Income Inequality in Ghana

2021· article· en· W3119329199 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christiana Manu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsIncome distributionForeign direct investmentRemittanceEconomic inequalityOpenness to experienceCointegrationGini coefficientGlobalizationError correction modelIncome inequality metricsPovertyInequalityDistribution (mathematics)Development economicsDemographic economicsMacroeconomicsEconomic growthEconometricsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Available empirical evidence suggests that globalisation in recent years have had a significant positive impact on various sectors of most economies; however, significant evidence also exists suggesting that this economic process has also accentuated poverty and worsened income distribution in parts of some economies. This study examines the effects of foreign direct investment, trade openness and foreign remittance on income inequality in Ghana. The paper applied the vector error correction model in examining the effect of FDI inflow, foreign remittance and trade openness and income inequality in Ghana. The result indicates Foreign Remittance, FDI, Trade Openness and Gini index, are integrated of order one. Additionally, Johansen’s test for cointegration suggest a long-run relationship between the Gini coefficient (income distribution) and examined independent variables. The study also found out that foreign remittance has a significant negative relationship with Ghana’s income inequality and FDI inflows have no significant impact on Ghana’s income inequality.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207