CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF LIVING STANDARDS A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE PRODUCTIVITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the productivity performance of mining in Canada has been very poor. Based on official real GDP and labour input estimates from Statistics Canada, labour productivity in mining fell by 2.21 per cent per year between the 2000 cyclical peak and 2007, with capital productivity down 0.28 per cent per year and total factor productivity (TFP) off 1.07 per cent per year between 2000 and 2006. Among the various hypotheses put forward to explain these trends, the most robust seems to be that higher output prices have suppressed productivity growth through two effects: increased exploitation of low-productivity marginal resource deposits, and business decisions based on profitability rather than productivity. Despite the decline in productivity in mining, it is not necessarily true that Canadians are worse off. In fact, increased relative output prices for mining products as well as a high productivity level in the mining sub-sector, have resulted in positive contributions to Canada‟s aggregate labour productivity growth from 2000 to 2006 and an offsetting effect on the post-2000 aggregate labour
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".