MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100812288

BOTH OR NONE? GRANGER CAUSALITY ANALYSIS ON OECD COUNTRIES

2016· article· en· W7100812288 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLegal Cases and Commentary
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCausality (physics)Granger causalityAutoregressive modelWald testTime seriesVector autoregression
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the possibility of export-led growth and growth-driven export by testing for Granger causality between the logarithms of real exports and real GDP in twenty-five OECD countries. Two complementary testing strategies are applied. First, depending on the time series properties of the data, causality is tested with Wald tests within finite-order vector autoregressive (VAR) models in levels and/or in first-differences. Then, with no need for pre-testing, a modified Wald procedure is used in augmented level VAR systems. In both cases we experiment with alternative deterministic trend degrees. The results indicate that there is no causality between exports and growth (NC) in Luxembourg and in the Netherlands, exports cause growth (ECG) in Iceland, growth causes exports (GCE) in Canada, Japan and Korea, and there is two-way causality between exports and growth (TWC) in Sweden and in the UK. Although with less certainty, we also conclude that there is

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal Cases and CommentaryFrench-language works237,207