MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883922408

Real GDP: Fourth-Quarter 2007 Final Estimate

2008· article· en· W2883922408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brent Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Trends · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Investment (military)Percentage pointReal gross domestic productEconomicsConsumption (sociology)Agricultural economicsEconometricsFinanceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real GDP, according to the final estimate by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), was unchanged from both the preliminary and advance estimates, rising at an annualized rate of 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter. While the overall growth rate in GDP remained identical to the advance estimate, the performance of its underlying components changed. Personal consumption was revised up from the 2.0 percent of the advance release to 2.3 percent in the final. After incorporating more complete information about the fourth quarter, net exports improved as well. Imports (which subtract from GDP) fell from 0.3 percent in the advance release to –1.4 percent in the final. Final exports rose 6.5 percent, an upward adjustment of 2.6 percentage points over the advance estimate. Offsetting these improvements to growth, both business and residential investment deteriorated with the revisions. Business fixed investment was adjusted down from 7.5 percent to 6.0 percent in the fourth quarter. Also, residential investment worsened, according to the final estimate, from –23.9 percent to –25.2 percent.

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)0.005
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.015

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic TrendsSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207