MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121158377

Productivity Growth in Canadian and U.S. Regulated Industries

2010· article· en· W3121158377 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Wulong Gu, Amélie Lafrance

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational productivity monitor · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityAgricultural economicsEconomic geographyEconomicsBusinessInternational tradeEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article compares the productivity growth of a set of Canadian and U.S. regulated industries. Using data from Statistics Canada’s KLEMS database and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the article examines productivity growth in transportation services (which includes air, rail, and other transportation services), broadcasting and telecommunications, cultural industries (which include publishing and information services, and motion pictures and sound recording), and financial services (which includes financial intermediation and insurance) over the period from 1977 to 2006. These industries provide the foundational networks on which other industries rely. In 1977, they were quite heavily regulated in Canada. They experienced deregulation after 1977, but still faced various types of regulation in 2006. Deregulation also occurred in the United States, but regulation has generally been less restrictive in that country over the period.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational productivity monitorSame topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207