MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148435590

OECD 국가의 서비스업 경쟁력 비교분석과 한국에의 시사점

2007· article· ko· W3148435590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
서환주, 이영수, 허재준

Bibliographic record

VenueEU학 연구 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEmployee Welfare and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanIndex (typography)LicenseBusinessService (business)RecreationEconomyRegional scienceEconomicsGeographyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using Trade Specification Index (TSI) and Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) Index, we investigate patterns of trade in services in twelve OECD countries during 1990-2002 and classify those twelve countries into four model-types: British model, American model, French model, and German model. First, Finance, Insurance and Communications are core competitive sectors in British model (UK, Canada, Ireland, Switzerland). Second, the core sectors of American model cover not only finance like British model but also travel, royalties & license fees, and personal, cultural & recreational services. Third, French model (France, Italy and Australia) depends highly on travel service. Finally, German model (Germany, Japan, Korea and Sweden) demonstrates weak competitiveness in services sectors relative to manufacturing industries. They commonly possess competitiveness in transportation service.

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)0.002
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEU학 연구Same topicEmployee Welfare and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207