Canaux de transmission des effets des envois de fonds des migrants sur la croissance économique en Afrique subsaharienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les envois de fonds des travailleurs migrants sont devenus le flux de financement le plus important de certains pays en développement. Cette étude a évalué l’influence des envois de fonds des migrants sur la croissance économique des États d’Afrique subsaharienne en mettant en exergue les canaux de transmission. Elle a utilisé les données de panel de 34 pays couvrant la période 2000-2020 à travers une approche de panel dynamique des GMM en système. Les résultats révèlent l’inexistence d’effet marginal des envois de fonds sur la croissance économique mais identifient comme canaux de transmission le développement financier et la qualité des institutions. En outre, les résultats montrent que ces deux canaux agissent comme des substituts aux envois de fonds. Il est donc recommandé des politiques économiques visant à faciliter les transferts financiers afin de palier des insuffisances du système financier et institutionnel. Classification JEL: F22, F24, O11, R11
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".