A Comparison of GDP growth of European countries during 2008-2012 period from regional and other perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the article is to compare total real GDP growth of European countries from the 3rd quarter of 2008 to the 3rd quarter of 2012, that is the period from the start of the Great recession in European Union to the present day. This period is characterized by a predominant economic stagnation or an economic recession, which occurred in the majority of examined European countries. Countries were divided into groups based on the following grounds: whether they are geographically close the economic center (Germany) or periphery, whether they are in Eurozone or not, whether they are (new) EU members or not, etc. The main findings from the comparisons are as follows: 1. European countries close to the economic center (Germany and its neighbours) experienced positive economic growth during examined period on average, while countries from European periphery experienced negative economic growth on average during the same period. This difference was found statistically significant at α = 0.01 level. 2. Differences between Eurozone and non-Eurozone and differences between old and new EU members were found statistically insignificant. 3. Among European regions with the most negative real total GDP growth were countries from Baltics, Balkans, Southern Europe (Italy, Portugal) and Iceland. The most successfull countries with the most positive real total GDP growth were countries of central Europe (Poland, Slovakia, Germany, Switzerland, Austria) and Northern Europe (Sweden and Norway).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".