Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following table examines the relationship between the percentage of GNP invested in capital (including robotics) and the consequent percentage of increase in productivity. Over the seventeen year study period, illustrated in Table VI , every nation examined has increased its total output capacity as a consequence of increased capital investment. While the United States remains the most productive nation in the world, it is important to note that proportionally, our increase over the 17-year period has been the smallest of any country studies — even smaller than the United Kingdom’s. Note that the largest productivity increase— one-hundred-seventy-percent —occurred Table VI Relationship of Productivity and Investment 1960 TO 1977 CUMULATIVE DATA* COUNTRY % GNP INVESTED IN CAPITAL % PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE CANADA 23% 28% FRANCE 25% 65% W. GERMANY 24% 78% JAPAN 40% 170% NORWAY 31% 40% SWEDEN 22% 50% SWITZERLAND 30% 61% U.K. 20% 30% U.S. 16% 18% *MACHINE TOOL MANUFACTURERS DATA in Japan, where the percentage of GNP invested in capital was the highest. Japan, a country of scarce natural resources and equally scarce manpower, can attribute a large share of its great gains in the world market directly to the intelligent use of capital investment; and a large portion of this investment has been in robotics.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".