MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514253713 · doi:10.17016/bulletin.2000.86-3

Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: Recent Developments and the 1999 Revision

2000· article· en· W1514253713 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Gilbert, Norman J. Morin, Richard D. Raddock

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Reserve Bulletin · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndustrial production indexIndex (typography)Quarter (Canadian coin)Production (economics)Capacity utilizationIndustrial productionAgricultural economicsOperations managementEnvironmental scienceEconomicsComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In late 1999, the Federal Reserve published revised measures of industrial production, capacity, and capacity utilization for the period January 1992 through October 1 999. The updated measures reflect both the incorporation of newly available, more comprehensive source data typical of annual revisions and the introduction of improved methods for compiling a few series, including computer and office equipment and motor vehicles. The new source data are for recent years, primarily from 1997 on, and the modified methods affect data beginning in 1992. The production index for the third quarter of 1999 is at 137.7 percent of output in 1992, compared with 135.2 percent reported before the annual revision, and the capacity index is 170.7 percent of output in 1992, compared with 167.9 percent reported previously. As a result, the rate of industrial capacity utilization was revised up 0.1 percentage point, to 80.7 percent for the third quarter of 1999.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederal Reserve BulletinSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207