Bibliographic record
Abstract
The report, based on the CSLS Provincial Productivity Database, provides an overview of Manitoba’s productivity performance over the 1997-2007 period. The key findings are the following: • Manitoba’s labour productivity growth in the market sector was above the national average during the 1997-2007 period, with an average growth rate of 2.1 per cent compared to the Canadian rate of 1.7 per cent per year. In terms of labour productivity growth, Manitoba’s performance ranked 2nd among the provinces. • As with Canada, labour productivity growth was driven mainly by capital intensity growth. Capital intensity was responsible for 52.9 per cent of growth in labour productivity in Manitoba over the 1997-2007 period. • Manitoba’s labour productivity level in 2007 was $31.40 (1997 dollars) per hour, which represents 87.1 per cent of the Canadian level. This, in turn, implies a labour productivity gap of 12.9 percentage points. This gap was caused by low levels of both multifactor productivity and capital intensity compared to the national average. • Manitoba had a labour productivity gap in 10 of the 15 two-digit NAICS industries. In most cases, the low multifactor productivity level was the main culprit. The exception was transportation
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.353 | 0.152 |
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".