MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7077235396 · doi:10.63878/qrjs112

ECONOMIC GROWTH IN G-7 COUNTRIES: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF ITS DETERMINANTS

2025· article· en· W7077235396 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research Journal for Social Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman capitalProxy (statistics)EstimationGeneralized method of momentsInvestment (military)Index (typography)Order (exchange)Sustainable growth rateCapital deepening

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is an exploration of the key factors of economic growth among G-7 economies, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States, between the years 2000 and 2023. As economic giants of the world, a study on the sources of growth in these countries provides a good knowledge on the enhancement of long-term growth and development policies. The study identifies and estimates the role of investment, balance of trade, the participation of labor force, human capital index as a proxy of health and education and high-technology exports through dynamic panel-data estimation technique by means of the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM). The methodology takes into consideration country-heterogeneity as well as time dynamics in order to provide a sound and reliable outcome. The results affirm that investment and human capital are invariably robust factors in driving GDP growth with balance of trade being positively supportive as well. Also, the labor force participation and high-technology exports, which are statistically less significant in this model but show positive upward trends, have a potential in the future with the help of adaptive and innovation-friendly policies. Comprehensively, the findings point to the long-term viability of investment, education, and technology development on promoting inclusive, resilient, and sustainable growth in advanced economies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.332
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Research Journal for Social StudiesSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207