MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098751740

1 Changes in the Terms of Trade and Canada’s Productivity Performance

2008· article· en· W7098751740 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal factor productivityDepreciation (economics)ProductivityNet incomeGross domestic incomeReal gross domestic productNet national incomeMultifactor productivityGross incomeIncome distribution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using new data from Statistics Canada, the paper shows that the productivity performance of the business sector of the Canadian economy has been reasonably satisfactory over the past 46 years. In particular, traditional gross income Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth averaged 1.14 percentage points per year over the period 1961-2006 and when a net income framework was used, TFP growth averaged 1.26 percentage points per year. The focus of the study is on the real income generated by the business sector of the Canadian economy. Two concepts of income are used: a gross concept that includes depreciation as a part of income and a more appropriate net concept where depreciation is excluded from income. In both the gross and net income frameworks, the growth of quality adjusted labour input growth was the main driver of growth in real income followed by TFP growth, followed by growth in capital input and then by falling real import prices. However, in recent years, the contribution of falling real import prices turned out to be more than twice as important as capital deepening. The study encountered many data problems which should be addressed in future work on Canadian business sector productivity performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Compound Pharmacology StudiesFrench-language works237,207