Bibliographic record
Abstract
The second quarter saw a marked acceleration in the economy's growth rate to 0.6 per cent per quarter and the first estimate for the third quarter suggests that this faster rate of growth has persisted. This has to be seen in the context of a situation where, for the last two years economic commentators have been talking about a “downturn” but where there is little evidence of one in the aggregate data. Since the start of the new century in 2001, output has not actually fallen in any quarter and quarterly growth at an annual rate has dropped below 1 per cent per annum only once, in the first quarter of 2003. The industrial sector has been very weak; indeed its experience has been very similar to that of the last recession, but strong service sector growth has meant that the economy as a whole has not experienced a recession. It is of course too early to be sure that we have encountered a sustained period of average or above-average economic growth. The question can be answered definitively only ex post and after due time has been allowed for data revision, but it is certainly the implication of the recent data and our forecast taken together. For this reason, we are not concerned about the fall in industrial production shown in the industrial production index in August. While it obviously affects views of growth in the quarter we do not see it as the beginning of a new downturn.
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 | 0.006 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.070 | 0.053 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.016 |
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".