MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394960849 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v26i1.6876

The Effect of Financial Development and International Trade on Deregulation

2024· article· en· W4394960849 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Justice Kyei-Mensah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndogeneityDeregulationEconomicsGross domestic productPer capitaLiberalizationInternational economicsPanel dataMonetary economicsFinancial marketFinancial sector developmentDeveloping countryMacroeconomicsFinanceEconometricsEconomic growthMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides robust evidence of financial development and international trade liberalization on deregulation in some developing economies. Specifically, it investigates the effect of financial development and international trade liberalization on deregulation in 45 African countries in a panel set between January 1, 1980, to December 31, 2017. It employed the system Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) panel data estimation to address potential endogeneity concerns. Demir and Dahi (2011) showed that system GMM can effectively deal with any endogeneity issue originating from unobserved country-specific effects, and bias. The study found a robust positive effect of financial development and international trade liberalization on deregulation. The key finding was that technological impact is observed when private credit is regressed on market capitalization on Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It found that both GDP and gross per capita negatively impact financial development, conceivably causing the selected African countries’ markets to be insulated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207