MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2884698464

GDP: Third-Quarter Preliminary Estimate

2008· article· en· W2884698464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brent Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Trends · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsPercentage pointConsumption (sociology)Real gross domestic productInvestment (military)Personal consumption expenditures price indexDemographic economicsAgricultural economicsEconometricsPersonal incomeGeographyMacroeconomicsFinancePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Third–quarter real GDP was revised down 0.2 percentage point, to −0.5 percent, according to the preliminary estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The downward revision, which was largely anticipated, reflected downward adjustments to personal consumption and exports, which were somewhat offset by an upward adjustment to inventories, and a downward revision to imports (which subtracts from real GDP). Personal consumption was revised down from −3.1 percent (annualized rate) to −3.7 percent—its largest decrease since the second quarter of 1980. Real export growth was adjusted down to 3.4 percent from the 5.9 percent of the advance release. Also, imports are now reported as decreasing at an annualized rate of 3.2 percent, as opposed to −1.9 percent before. Residential investment in the third quarter was revised up from −19.1 percent to −17.6 percent, a slight improvement over its four–quarter growth rate and a somewhat welcome development given the current status of the housing sector.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.021

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
GenreOther

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 Trends→Same topicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth→French-language works237,207→