MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182681630

Revisions Analysis of Italian Quarterly National Accounts

2014· article· en· W2182681630 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Giovanna Piras

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicItaly: Economic History and Contemporary Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)EconometricsNational accountsEconomicsGross fixed capital formationConsumption (sociology)Private consumptionReal gross domestic productStatisticsGross domestic productMathematicsMacroeconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we focus on measuring the statistical properties of the revision process of quarterly national accounts released by Istat, with particular reference to quarter on quarter changes of real GDP and main components, measured in chained values (or at constant prices for old vintages) and net of calendar and seasonal effects, over the 15 years between 1999 Q1 and 2013 Q4. The performance of statistical indicators usually adopted to perform the revision analysis proves dependent on the time span specifically considered. Indeed our findings concerning both the last 15 years as a whole and the single quarters show uneven behaviour inside the year in the different quarter. The evidence based on developments over the full period shows that the average revisions are in general negligible; on the contrary, they turn statistically significant based on moving window analysis, that find some bias in the revisions between E2 and E1 concerning Gross fixed capital formation, Exports and Public consumption. Finally, the standard ‘news or noise’ analysis is performed in order to assess the ability of the preliminary estimates of GDP and its main components to efficiently forecast of the respective final estimate.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicItaly: Economic History and Contemporary IssuesFrench-language works237,207