MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888781409

Complex Analysis Of Gross Domestic Product At The End Of 2017

2018· article· en· W2888781409 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanian Statistical Review Supplement · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGross domestic productQuarter (Canadian coin)Product (mathematics)EconomicsGross domestic incomeSeasonal adjustmentPoint (geometry)EconometricsGeographyMathematicsMacroeconomicsPublic economicsGross income
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gross Domestic Product is the most tangible indicator of country results and it expresses how national resources were used over a one-year period. Following the economic-financial crisis, which was very acute in Romania in 2007-2009, an economic recovery process started. Year-on-year, quarter-on-quarter, the results were more and more consistent. In this article we do not have the problem to look at how to grow the Gross Domestic Product, but we will highlight the evolution that was recorded especially in 2017. After a year with good results in 2016, 2017 started with sustained achievements. These are either calculated according to the previous quarter or against the same period of the previous year, showing an increase from one quarter to the next. Also, regardless of whether we analyze the gross series or the seasonally adjusted series, the results in 2017 are close in terms of rhythm growth. We know that Gross Domestic Product is calculated on the basis of initial data, then the semi-definitive version and, finally, the varied final. From a methodological point of view, three steps are necessary to be able to record all data, eliminate errors and make estimates for the most recent data so that they are consistent with the level recorded.In 2017, the Gross Domestic Product has risen from one period to the next, from 2015, and until this year, in the analyzed scenarios, there is no quarter in which we can see either a fall in the previous year or the of the previous quarter. The sustained rhythm shows that in 2015 growth was 4%, in 2016 4.8% and now in 2017 6.9% when comparing gross series data or 7% when calculating the seasonally adjusted series. Gross domestic product growth, driven primarily by consumption, is a positive step, but it needs to be further strengthened by moving to increase this indicator on both consumption and investment. By creating these prerequisites, we can anticipate a sustained growth of the Gross Domestic Product guaranteed for the next period, by achieving, in a higher percentage of domestic investments, foreign direct investment and access to community funds.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.277 · 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