MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W857999180

Priorities and Directions for Future Productivity Research: Health Care, Intangible Capital and High-tech

2014· article· en· W857999180 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel E. Sichel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational productivity monitor · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepreciation (economics)ProductivityHealth careCapital (architecture)Investment (military)EconomicsBusinessHigh techPublic economicsCapital formationHuman capitalEconomic growthFinancial capitalPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article identifies health care, intangible capital, and the high-tech sector as priority areas for productivity research. In terms of health care, it highlights the importance of getting prices right and the key role that a satellite account for health care can play for productivity measurement. Regarding intangible capital, it stresses the importance of developing better price deflators for investment in tangible capital as well as better depreciation rates. Finally, it notes that because of the rapidly changing nature of the high-tech sector measurement issues remain a priority. I AM VERY PLEASED TO HAVE an opportunity to participate in this panel discussion. Each panel-ist was asked to discuss three agenda items for future research on productivity. It is challeng-ing to be limited to just three items as many topics are worthy of further research. That said, I will focus on three items in the area of

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational productivity monitorSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207