MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124818377

International Productivity Differences and Roles of Domestic Investment, FDI and Trade

2009· article· en· W3124818377 on OpenAlexaff
Gouranga Gopal Das, Hiranya K. Nath, Halis Murat Yildiz

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Technological Innovation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityEconomicsDeveloping countryForeign direct investmentGranger causalityInternational economicsDemographic economicsIndex (typography)Investment (military)International tradeMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsEconometricsEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper calculates Theil’s entropy index to measure the extent of productivity differences across 92 countries for the period from 1970 to 2003. While there is evidence of increasing differences in productivity across these countries, we observe different patterns when we group the countries by income levels. These differences seem to be decreasing among middle income developing and developed countries, whereas they seem to be widening among low and high income developing countries. The results of our multivariate time series analysis also suggest that FDI increases productivity differences among low and high income developing countries, whereas GDI reduces these differences among low income countries in the long-run. Granger causality test results indicate that while an increase in GDI leads to a decline in growth of trade, a higher growth of trade appears to be important for attracting FDI to middle income countries. Furthermore, a reduction in productivity differences and a higher FDI growth lead to higher growth of trade in developed countries.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicEconomic and Technological InnovationFrench-language works237,207