Estimating Brazilian Monthly GDP: a State-Space Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper has several original contributions. The fi rst is to employ a superior interpolation method that enables to estimate, nowcast and forecast monthly Brazilian GDP for 1980-2012 in an integrated way; see Bernanke, Gertler and Watson (1997, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity). Second, along the spirit of Mariano and Murasawa (2003, Journal of Applied Econometrics), we propose and test a myriad of interpolation models and interpolation auxiliary series all coincident with GDP froma business-cycle dating point of view. Based on these results, we fi nally choose the most appropriate monthly indicator for Brazilian GDP. Third, this monthly GDP estimate is compared to an economic activity indicator widely used by practitioners in Brazil - the Brazilian Economic Activity Index - (IBC-Br). We found that the our monthly GDP tracks economic activity better than IBC-Br. This happens by construction, since our state-space approach imposes the restriction (discipline) that our monthly estimate must add up to the quarterly observed series in any given quarter, whichmay not hold regarding IBC-Br. Moreover, our method has the advantage to be easily implemented: it only requires conditioning on two observed series for estimation, while estimating IBC-Br requires the availability of hundreds of monthly series. Third, in a nowcasting and forecasting exercise, we illustrate the advantages of our integrated approach. Finally, we compare the chronology of recessions of our monthly estimatewith those done elsewhere.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".