MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7111277789 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17852512

Economic Growth Theories: Comparative Analysis of Classical, Neoclassical, and Endogenous Models

2025· article· ang· W7111277789 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageang
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndogenous growth theoryArgument (complex analysis)Human capitalInterpretation (philosophy)Function (biology)Capital (architecture)Growth theoryCapital accumulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic growth is one of the most important topics in the economic area, which has been considered by politicians and experts of countries. Due to its importance, various models have been proposed for its study and analysis. The EG models are theories that are used for interpretation and explaining the existing realities of economic growth at the global level. This paper aims to compare these models, including classical, neoclassical, and endogenous, from different aspects. For this purpose, using the method of systematic study, the models, pioneers, and their characteristics are introduced. Then, their structure and theoretical foundations are briefly presented. Finally, these models and the components are analyzed and discussed in a comparative way to provide a strong argument for their use or rejection. The results of this research show that the EG models have characteristics that cause economists to justify their use or criticize them. the factors like capital accumulation and expansion of the employment force play special roles in the classical growth model. It postulates that a country’s economic growth decreases with population increase and resources limitation. This model, despite its emphasis on technology, does not consider its important role in economic growth. On the other hand, neoclassical growth theory can explain most of the observed differences in income levels among countries by considering human capital inputs in the model. However, the explanation of income levels, which is emphasized by this model, is not considered the main function of growth theory. Finally, proponents of the endogenous growth model have tried to explain the growth of production per capita in a unified state and then express the differences in growth rates among countries. According to this model, sustainable growth can be realized endogenously, that is, without the intervention of any exogenous technological progress.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicEconomic Growth and Productivity→French-language works237,207→