MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917309289 · doi:10.17016/bulletin.2001.87-3-2

Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: The 2000 Annual Revision

2001· article· en· W2917309289 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carol Corrado

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Reserve Bulletin · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndustrial production indexCapacity utilizationProduction (economics)Industrial productionQuarter (Canadian coin)Index (typography)Agricultural economicsAnnual growth %Operations managementStatisticsEnvironmental scienceEconomicsMathematicsComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In late 2000, the Federal Reserve Board published the annual revision of its index of industrial production and related measures of capacity and utilization for the period January 1992 through October 2000. The updated measures reflect the incorporation of newly available, more comprehensive source data, the introduction of new production series, and changes in methods. For this revision, two new years of comprehensive data on manufacturing output became available; otherwise, the updating of the data was typical of annual revisions. Total industrial output has increased, on average, 5.1 percent per year since 1995, and industrial capacity has expanded 5.4 percent per year; these revised rates of increase are more rapid than those previously reported. The rate of industrial capacity utilization was little changed by the revision for the third quarter of 2000 but was revised up 0.6 percentage point, to 81.6 percent, for the fourth quarter of 1999.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.012

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.127 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederal Reserve BulletinSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207