MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123236249 · doi:10.1111/roiw.12028

Export Growth, Capacity Utilization, and Productivity Growth: Evidence from the Canadian Manufacturing Plants

2013· article· en· W3123236249 on OpenAlexaffabout
John R. Baldwin, Wulong Gu, Beiling Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Income and Wealth · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlowdownProductivityEconomicsMultifactor productivityAggregate (composite)Manufacturing sectorDecompositionCapacity utilizationWork (physics)Labour economicsTotal factor productivityMacroeconomicsEconomic growthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aggregate labor and multifactor productivity growth slowed substantially post‐2000 in the Canadian manufacturing sector. To examine the source of the decline, this paper proposes a decomposition method that delves deeper into the two micro‐components of aggregate productivity growth: a within‐plant component and a between‐plant component. The decomposition builds on earlier work by Jorgenson and his collaborators that decomposes aggregate productivity growth into its industry components, but applies it to the plant level and introduces non‐neoclassical features of the plant‐level economic environment. It finds that the preponderance of the aggregate labor and multifactor productivity growth slowdown is due to the pro‐cyclical nature of productivity growth arising from capacity utilization. Almost all of the aggregate productivity growth slowdown is driven by exporters, as exporters experienced large declines in labor productivity growth in the post‐2000 period as a result of large declines in their capacity utilization.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.132 · 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

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Income and WealthSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207