MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6963099812 · doi:10.20381/ruor-25511

The Role of the Interprovincial Transfers in the ß-Convergence Process. Further Empirical Evidence for Canada

2003· article· fr· W6963099812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvergence (economics)Empirical evidencePrincipal (computer security)Convergence clubsEmpirical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the approach of Timljonavich and Vogelsang (2002), I present empirical evidence of the role of the federal transfers on the B-convergence process in Canadian provinces. Using information on personal income for the period 1926-1999, the principal conclusion is that the interprovincial transfers were not determinant or decisive to the attainment of deterministic convergence in the Canadian provinces. Their role have been to accelerate the convergence process, particularly in poorer provinces. / Fondée sur l’approche de Timljonavich and Vogelsang (2002), je présente l’évidence empirique du rôle des transferts fédéraux dans le processus entraînant la convergence B pour les provinces canadiennes. Utilisant l’information sur le revenu personnel pour la période de 1926 à 1999, la principale conclusion qui en ressort est que les transferts inter-provinciaux ne se sont pas avérés déterminants ou décisifs dans l’atteinte d’une convergence déterministique pour les provinces canadiennes. Leur rôle a plutôt été d’accélérer le processus de convergence, en particulier pour les provinces moins nanties.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)→Same topicEconomic Growth and Productivity→French-language works237,207→