An Analysis of New Brunswick’s Productivity Performance, 1997-2007: Labour Productivity Driven by Capital Intensity Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The report, based on the CSLS Provincial Productivity Database, provides an overview of New Brunswick’s productivity performance over the 1997-2007 period. The key findings are the following: • New Brunswick experienced slightly higher labour productivity growth than Canada as a whole in the market sector from 1997 to 2007, with an average growth rate of 1.8 per cent per year, compared to the Canadian rate of 1.7 per cent per year. In terms of labour productivity growth, New Brunswick’s performance ranks 5th among the provinces. • Despite good labour productivity growth overall, 4 industries witnessed declining productivity: arts, entertainment and recreation (-5.5 per cent per year), mining, and oil and gas extraction (-4.8 per cent), utilities (-1.1 per cent) and Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services (-1.1 per cent each). • New Brunswick’s labour productivity level in 2007 was $28.20 (1997 dollars) per hour, which represents 78.1 per cent of the Canadian level (which implies a labour productivity gap of 21.9 percentage points), up from 77.5 per cent in 1997. The province had the 3rd lowest labour productivity level among the ten provinces in 2007. • Labour productivity growth in the province was driven mainly by capital intensity growth, which
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".