MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995138208 · doi:10.1177/0027950111411370

Prospects for Individual Economies

2011· article· en· W1995138208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dawn Holland, Ray Barrell, Aurélie Delannoy, Tatiana Fic, Ian Hurst, Ali Orazgani, Paweł Paluchowski, Rachel Whitworth

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Institute Economic Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGerman Economic Analysis & Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsHeadlineGross domestic productReal gross domestic productSlowdownGoods and servicesAgricultural economicsInternational economicsEconomyMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsBusinessGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The headline figure for US GDP growth in the final quarter of 2010 was perhaps slightly higher than expected given the slowdown in Europe and Japan, at an annualised rate of 3.1 per cent. But a closer look at the components of GDP reveals an underlying weakness in the US economy. Domestic demand stagnated in the final quarter of 2010, and the strong rise in GDP is entirely attributable to a 12.6 per cent (annualised) contraction in import volumes. The slowdowns in Europe and Japan should be seen as at least partly attributable to this loss of demand from the US, which remains the world's largest importer of goods and services, accounting for about 12½ per cent of world trade (see Appendix figure B3). Available information for the first quarter of 2011 suggests that consumer spending growth moderated to about 1½ per cent at an annualised rate, and we expect GDP growth in the US to average about 2½ per cent per annum this year and next.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1160.037

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.132 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Institute Economic ReviewSame topicGerman Economic Analysis & PoliciesFrench-language works237,207