Capacity Utilization Us Chile

D 55 completed
Other
unknown / r · small
98
Files
33,020
LOC
0
Frameworks
3
Languages

Pipeline State

completed
Run ID
#1545686
Phase
done
Progress
0%
Started
2026-04-16 23:30:43
Finished
2026-04-16 23:30:43
LLM tokens
0

Pipeline Metadata

Stage
Cataloged
Decision
proceed
Novelty
37.67
Framework unique
Isolation
Last stage change
2026-05-10 03:35:17
Deduplication group #47862
Member of a group with 185 similar repo(s) — canonical #1559941 view group →
Repobility (the analyzer behind this table) · https://repobility.com

AI Prompt

Create an R project structure for a dissertation chapter analyzing capacity utilization, specifically focusing on a reduced-rank VECM with rank r=3 for the US corporate sector. I need to build out the pipeline modules M0 through M13 within the `scripts/track_b/` directory. The analysis involves state vectors like [output, capital accumulation, exploitation rate, kₜeₜ, kₜeₜ²] and needs to account for a structural break around 1973. Please structure the code to handle data construction, lag selection, Johansen testing, RRR estimation, and finally, IRF and FEVD calculations, while referencing the raw data in `data/raw/`.
r econometrics time-series vecm financial-analysis dissertation statistics
Generated by gemma4:latest

Catalog Information

Create an R project structure for a dissertation chapter analyzing capacity utilization, specifically focusing on a reduced-rank VECM with rank r=3 for the US corporate sector. I need to build out the pipeline modules M0 through M13 within the scripts/track_b/ directory. The analysis involves state vectors like [output, capital accumulation, exploitation rate, kₜeₜ, kₜeₜ²] and needs to account for a structural break around 1973. Please structure the code to handle data construction, lag select

Tags

r econometrics time-series vecm financial-analysis dissertation statistics

Quality Score

D
54.7/100
Structure
33
Code Quality
70
Documentation
70
Testing
0
Practices
74
Security
90
Dependencies
50

Strengths

  • Good security practices — no major issues detected

Weaknesses

  • No LICENSE file — legal ambiguity for contributors
  • No tests found — high risk of regressions
  • No CI/CD configuration — manual testing and deployment
  • Potential hardcoded secrets in 1 files
  • 143 duplicate lines detected — consider DRY refactoring
  • 1 'god files' with >500 LOC need decomposition

Recommendations

  • Add a test suite — start with critical path integration tests
  • Set up CI/CD (GitHub Actions recommended) to automate testing and deployment
  • Add a linter configuration to enforce code style consistency
  • Add a LICENSE file (MIT recommended for open source)
  • Move hardcoded secrets to environment variables or a secrets manager

Languages

r
58.3%
markdown
40.7%
json
1.0%

Frameworks

None detected

Quality Timeline

1 quality score recorded.

View File Metrics

Embed Badge

Add to your README:

![Quality](https://repos.aljefra.com/badge/1369439.svg)
Quality BadgeSecurity Badge
Export Quality CSVDownload SBOMExport Findings CSV