Modelling of natural growth with memory effect in economics: An application of adomian decomposition and variational iteration methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The power-law memory effect is taken into consideration in a generalisation of the economic model of natural growth. The memory effect refers to a process's reliance on its current state and its history of previous changes. However, the study that focuses on natural growth in economics considering the memory effect with fractional order-linear differential equation model is still limited. The current investigation seeks to solve the natural growth with memory effect in the economics model and decide the best model using fractional differential equation (FDE), namely Adomian Decomposition and Variational Iteration Methods. Also, this study assumes the level of consumer loss memory during a certain time interval denoted by a parameter (α). This study showed the model of loss memory effect with 0 < α ≤ 1 given a slowdown in output growth compared to a model without memory effect. Besides that, this study also found that output Y(t) is growing faster with the Variational Iteration method compared to the Adomian decomposition method. Also, using graphical simulation, this study found the output Y(t) is closer to the exact solution with α=0.4 and α=0.9. In conclusion, this study successfully solved natural growth with memory effect in economics and decided the best model between FDE, namely Adomian decomposition and Variational iterative methods using numerical analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".