MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598093698 · doi:10.1177/002795010418900103

The World Economy

2004· article· en· W2598093698 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Institute Economic Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsInflation (cosmology)DeflationRecessionCommodityYield (engineering)Output gapMonetary economicsKeynesian economicsMonetary policyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global inflationary pressures have been building over the last 12 months. These rising pressures reflect emergence from the global recession of 2001–2 and fiscal laxity in several of the world's largest economies, as well as a number of temporary factors such as rising commodity prices and indirect tax increases. Inflation expectations, as reflected by yield differences between indexed and ordinary government debt, have edged up in the US, the Euro Area and the UK, as illustrated in Chart 1. US and UK inflation expectations are about 0.8 percentage points higher than at the start of 2003, while Euro Area inflation expectations have risen by about 0.4 percentage points. Our inflation projections for the major economies are reported in Table 1. We forecast an acceleration of inflation in the US, Germany, France and the UK this year relative to 2003, and expect deflation in Japan to come to an end from the middle of 2004. Stronger inflationary pressures in the US partly reflect the positive output gap, while output gaps in Canada and the Euro Area are expected to remain negative until the end of 2005 and 2006, respectively. Our output gap estimates are illustrated in Chart 2.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0980.074

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Institute Economic ReviewSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207