MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W33452170 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.201503

Assessing the effect of public social expenditure and human capital development on Malaysian economic growth: A bound testing approach

2010· article· en· W33452170 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noraina Mazuin Sapuan, Nur Azura Sanusi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCointegrationDistributed lagHuman capitalEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)Public expenditurePublic capitalInvestment (military)Public economicsGovernment expenditureGovernment spendingHuman development (humanity)Gross fixed capital formationDevelopment economicsMacroeconomicsEconomic growthPublic financePublic investmentEconometricsMarket economyGross domestic productPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Government expenditure on social services is essential to the development of the economy. This fact also applies to Malaysia, a developing country that aspires to become a developed nation in few years to come. As Malaysian government plays a dominant role in financing public education and health services, an analysis on its investment in these areas, if made available, would be able to assist policymakers in generating a strategic plan to enhance human capital development and economic growth. Hence, the aims of this study are to investigate the long run and short run relationships between economic growth and public social expenditure with human capital indicators in Malaysia, using annual data from 1975 to 2008. The cointegration technique- bound testing approach developed within the autoregressive distribution lag (ARDL) framework is utilized. The finding shows that there is a cointegration between economic growth and the explanatory variables.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth→French-language works237,207→