MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170240374 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2021.5.006

The effects of corruption on Peru's economic growth during the period 1998-2018

2021· article· en· W3170240374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephany Alessandra Benito Marro, Leon Rivera Mallma, Wagner Vicente-Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBusiness, Innovation, and Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistributed lagLanguage changeEconomicsIndex (typography)Gross domestic productPanel dataEconometricsMacroeconomicsChristian ministryEconometric modelMonetary economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research was to determine the effect of corruption on economic growth in Peru for the period 1998-2018. It was determined how economic growth was affected both in the short and long term by corruption. The corruption control index was used to measure corruption and the variation in gross domestic product (GDP) at constant prices was used to measure economic growth. To determine this effect, the hypothetical deductive method was used as a general method since we sought to corroborate a hypothesis and as a specific method, we used the Autoregressive Model of Distributed Lag (ARDL) since this model adapts well to small samples, likewise we had a non-experimental research design – longitudinal explanatory. Data were collected from the World Bank and the Ministry of Education (MINEDU) from 1998 to 2018. As a result of the econometric ARDL model, it was obtained that corruption had a negative effect on economic growth since an improvement of one percentage point in the corruption index would mean an improvement of 0.55 percentage points in economic growth. Therefore, it is concluded that the effect of corruption has a negative effect on economic growth as expected according to the reviewed antecedents.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicBusiness, Innovation, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207