Multifactor Productivity Growth, Weak Capital Intensity Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The report, based on the CSLS Provincial Productivity Database, provides an overview of Quebec’s productivity performance over the 1997-2007 period. The key findings are the following: • Quebec 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, Quebec’s performance ranks 6th among the provinces. • Despite good labour productivity growth overall, two industries witnessed declining productivity: utilities (-1.5 per cent) and arts, entertainment and recreation (-0.4 per cent per year). • Quebec’s labour productivity level in 2007 was $35.60 (1997 dollars) per hour, which represents 98.8 per cent of the Canadian level (which implies a labour productivity gap of 1.2 percentage points), up slightly from 98.3 per cent in 1997. The province had the 4th highest labour productivity level among the ten provinces in 2007. • Labour productivity growth in the province was driven mainly by multifactor productivity growth, which accounted for 53.6 per cent of the increase experienced over the 1997-2007
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".