MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121449590

Growth Theory and Industrial Revolutions in Britain and America

2003· article· en· W3121449590 on OpenAlexaff
C. Knick Harley

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsExternalityGrowth theoryIndustrial RevolutionTechnological changeEndogenous growth theoryNeoclassical economicsEconomic expansionState (computer science)Economic systemMacroeconomicsMarket economyPolitical scienceMicroeconomicsHuman capital
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-run economic growth has again become a major focus of economic theory. A perception of technological change as an economic process with externalities has motivated the development of aggregate models that generate different steady-state growth paths. Economic history has also long been interested in long-run economic growth. Here, a dialogue is presented between growth theory and the historical literature on the industrial revolution in Britain and America's surge to international economic leadership in the late nineteenth century. In conclusion, economists' recent thinking about the microeconomics of technological change has provided fruitful material for the economic historian of growth. Unfortunately, the models of endogenous growth, on the other hand, present too aggregated a view of the economy to prove helpful when confronted with the details of economic history.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207