Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The OECD compiles a composite series of leading indicators (CLI) for each of its member countries and also for some other developing countries. This series includes a number of different components and has served as a useful indicator of changes in aggregate economic activity in OECD countries and elsewhere. It is possible to get a snapshot of a significant component of the global economy by examining this index. We did this in mid-December 2009. The relative size of these indicators month by month gives a good indication of the possible trough of the recession. The lowest value of the CLI for a variety of countries and country groups is displayed in Table 7.1 as well as the value for October 2009 and December 2009. Table 7.1 Composite leading indicators — month of lowest and highest value May 2007–December 2009 Country Month when index hit bottom Value of index at the bottom Value of index at peak Value of index December 2009 Value of index Oct 2009 Growth cycle outlook Indonesia* February 2009 93.6 106.5 98.8 99.5 recovery India January 2009 94.0 102.6 99.2 99.3 recovery China January 2009 91.9 102.7 103.1 103.2 expansion Major Asian 5 January 2009 92.6 102.6 102.5 101.0 expansion OECD total February 2009 92.6 103.0 103.1 101.3 expansion OECD Europe* January 2009 94.0 103.4 100.5 103.0 recovery G7 February 2009 92.2 103.0 103.1 101.1 expansion Big 4 Europe* January 2009 94.2 103.2 103.3 104.7 recovery US February 2009 91.0 103.4 101.5 99.6 expansion UK January 2009 95.9 103.2 105.8 103.8 expansion South Korea* October 2008 90.0 102.4 100.3 100.9 possible expansion Japan May 2009 89.2 101.8 102.1 99.6 expansion Germany February 2009 90.5 104.5 104.6 102.1 expansion France December 2008 95.8 102.3 106.7 104.7 expansion Canada February 2009 93.0 101.7 104.3 102.1 expansion Australia* April 2009 96.5 101.3 98.8 99.7 recovery *Value of Index is November not December 2009. Major Asian 5 include China, India, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea. Source: OECD, downloaded August 7, 2009, September 11, 2009 and January 3, 2010
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".