MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400398685 · doi:10.1504/ijpp.2024.139735

Does the quality of government affect economic growth Evidence from the QOG dataset

2024· article· en· W4400398685 on OpenAlex
Huong Le

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Public Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Quality (philosophy)Government (linguistics)BusinessEconomicsPublic economicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does the quality of government (QoG) affect economic growth? The paper considers whether or not a higher governance quality leads to a higher rate of economic growth. This paper sheds light on this debate by reinvestigating the relationship between the quality of government and economic growth, utilising four different operationalisations of governance quality, including the rule of law, quality of democracy, public integrity, and governance from the quality of government (QoG) dataset of 36 OECD countries. Contributing to the growing body of work on the correlation between governance quality and economic growth, this paper suggests that: 1) despite using different operationalisations of governance quality, the estimation results suggest a statistically significant and positive correlation between the quality of government and economic growth; 2) developed countries obtain more significant benefits of good governance on economic growth than developing countries.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.247 · 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