Bibliographic record
Abstract
The U.S. economy turned in an exceptional performance in 1999, combining strong real output growth with moderate inflation. Real GDP, a broad measure of the nation's output of goods and services, grew 4.6 percent from the fourth quarter of 1998 to the fourth quarter of 1999. Employment also rose solidly, and the civilian unemployment rate declined to the lowest level in about 30 years. Although rising world oil prices caused consumer prices to increase faster than in 1998, core inflation measures, which exclude food and energy prices, were about the same or slightly lower. Moreover, survey measures of long-term inflation expectations were stable despite the robust pace of the economic expansion.> What accounts for this exceptional combination of rapid growth and moderate inflation? Several factors helped hold down the inflation rate, including strong import competition and ample industrial capacity at home and abroad. But many recent discussions have emphasized the pronounced increase in productivity growth, reflecting both the high level of business investment and accelerated technological change. In particular, new information technologies, such as computers and the Internet, may be increasing economic efficiency through better coordination of business activities and reduced inventories. The evidence is unclear, however, about how much of the productivity acceleration is due to new technologies, and whether faster productivity growth can be sustained in the years ahead.> Such questions are crucial in judging whether rapid growth can continue without undermining the Federal Reserve's long-run objectives of price stability and sustainable economic growth. Garner examines recent inflation developments and the policy implications of faster productivity growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.062 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".