Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: The 2004 Annual Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In late 2004, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve issued revisions to its index of industrial production (IP) and the related measures of capacity and capacity utilization for the period from January 1972 to November 2004. Overall, the changes to total industrial production were small. Measured from the fourth quarter of 2002 to the third quarter of 2004, industrial output is reported to have increased a little less than shown previously. Production expanded more slowly in 2000 than earlier estimates indicated, whereas the contraction in 2001 was a little less steep. The rise in output in 2002 was slightly stronger than reported earlier. Although the level of IP was a bit lower in the third quarter of 2004 than previously reported, the rate of industrial capacity utilization--the ratio of production to capacity--was revised upward. At 78.2 percent, the utilization rate for total industry is 0.9 percentage point higher than previously reported but still 2.9 percentage points below its 1972-2003 average. The revision indicated that industrial capacity expanded at a slower rate in 2002 and 2004 than estimated previously. Capacity is reported to have declined a bit in 2003; previously, a small increase had been reported. The current figures for capacity in 2000 and 2001 indicate a slightly stronger rate of increase than the earlier estimates did.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".