MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Revisiting the Mankiw et al. (1992) growth regressions

2023· article· en· W4387454292 on OpenAlexaff
Spyridon Boikos, Theodore Panagiotidis, Elisavet Serenidou, Thanasis Stengos

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomics and Business Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsConvergence (economics)Growth modelEconometricsHuman capitalConditional convergencePopulationPopulation growthMathematical economicsMacroeconomicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We revisit the famous Mankiw et al 1992 (MRW) paper by updating the data for the periods 1960-2015, 1970-2015 and 1990-2015. We present results for the Solow, the augmented Solow model and the conditional convergence on saving rates, population growth and human capital. The augmented model fits the data better. Human capital remains significant and higher than the MRW estimates for both the augmented model and the conditional convergence. The updated dataset highlights that the importance of human capital for growth is higher than MRW have demonstrated to be. The datasets for reproduction are also provided.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomics and Business LettersSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207