The Effects of Land Inequality on Economic Growth: A Regional and Comparative Study, 1950-1970
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to improve regional and national databases. Apart from Taylor and \nHudson (1972), Deininger and Squire (1999), and Frankema (2008), there are no estimates \nfor land inequality, that is, landgini indices for Latin America for the period 1950-1970. \nFurthermore, the estimates of these authors are incomplete and only focus on the national \nlevel. The objective of this paper is to fill in the gaps in the literature by offering new and \noriginal estimates of landgini indices for all Latin American countries, and by extension for \nthe United States, Canada, and Western Europe, both nationally and regionally. The paper \npresents the methodology and sources used to estimate the landginis indices, compare \nthem with previous estimates and offer a more complete and global picture of land \ninequality. This paper presents the largest compilation of data on land inequality for this \nperiod. Furthermore, thanks to the new and original database offered in this paper, more \ncomplete regional and national studies can be derived.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".