MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099193974

Disarmed and Disadvantaged: Canada's Workers Need More Physical Capital to Confront the Productivity Challenge." C.D. Howe Institute e-brief

2011· article· en· W7099193974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepatriationInvestment (military)ProductivityEarningsCompetition (biology)Work (physics)Capital (architecture)Foreign direct investment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian workers have enjoyed less robust investment in plant and equipment than their counterparts in the United States and other major developed countries over the past 15 years. And notwithstanding Canada’s relative economic resilience through the recent slump, the per-worker investment gap vis-à-vis other countries appears to have widened. Policy measures to foster more investment in physical capital would give Canadian workers the tools to match foreign rivals and achieve high and growing incomes in the years ahead. Policymakers should increase domestic exposure to global competition and improve international tax provisions to attract inbound foreign investment and encourage repatriation of earnings by Canadian companies abroad. A key lesson from Canada’s own experience and from economic development around the world is that business investment in plant and equipment is critical to raising output and living standards. Increased work effort contributes negligibly to rising incomes over time: what matters much more are new machinery, equipment and buildings, and the technological innovations and organizational improvements they entail. 1

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.004

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→