Financial development and natural resources for the top five gas exporters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the recent preoccupations of scientific environment for "resource curse" in the context of financial development, the aim of this paper is to explore more the connection between financial development and natural resources abundance/dependence in the major five gas exporters in the period 1996-2021. The panel data models based on DOLS/FMOLS approach and mean group (MG) estimator suggest that the impact of resource abundance on financial development depends on the type of indicators used to assess the financial progress, as previous studies suggested. More coal per capita and the interaction between contract intensity and total natural resources, respectively oil per capita contribute to the development of financial markets, while economic growth supports the development of financial institutions. Even if natural gas per capita is causally related to financial development, it does not exert a significant impact on it in these countries. The new international context might be an opportunity for US, Canada, China and Saudi Arabia to achieve this target.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it