MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2443601994

Global and European Economic Recovery

2016· article· en· W2443601994 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raluca Andreea Mihalache

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanian Statistical Review Supplement · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsReal gross domestic productEconomic recoveryQuarter (Canadian coin)Consumer confidence indexMonetary economicsEffective exchange rateGross domestic productExchange rateInternational economicsMacroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recovery in euro area economic activity will continue according to projections. It is anticipated that real GDP will increase by 1, 7% in 2016 and 1, 9% in 2017. The overall prospects are unchanged compared to the previous period, the domestic demand is however more favorable external demand and the less favorable. It is estimated that the recovery of economic activity in the euro area will continue, supported increasingly by domestic demand over the projection horizon. In the third quarter of 2015, real GDP grew by 0, 3%. Looking ahead, on the basis of high levels of consumer confidence and corporate sector in recent months, we anticipate maintaining economic growth in the short term. Subsequently, a number of favorable factors are expected to support real GDP growth over the projection horizon, especially the accommodative monetary policy, a slight fiscal loosening, low prices of oil and gradually improving demand prospects worldwide, combined with the increase in quota the market share held by euro area exports, reflecting the relatively weaker exchange rate of the euro effectively.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.009

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomanian Statistical Review SupplementSame topicRegional Development and PolicyFrench-language works237,207