Factors Affecting the US Current Account: An Historical Decomposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The US current account deficit was around 6½ per cent of GDP in 2006, having risen by 2 per cent of GDP since 2002 when the dollar reached its peak and started to decline. Between the peak in 2002 and the last quarter of 2006 the dollar fell by 13.4 per cent in effective terms using 2003 trade weights, and it might have been expected that the current account would have improved. However, over the same period the household savings rate fell by more than 4 per cent of personal incomes and private sector investment rose by 0.6 per cent of GDP. At the same time, the public sector deficit improved by around 1 per cent of GDP, but this was not enough to offset the major decline in net savings in the private sector. These domestic imbalances have been partly responsible for the deterioration in the current account, and appear to have more than offset the impacts of the decline in the dollar. In addition, since 2002 the oil price has risen and this has led to a significant deterioration in the US current account.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".