Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: The 2003 Annual Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In late 2003, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve issued revisions to its measures of industrial, capacity, and capacity utilization for the period from January 1972 to September 2003. The changes are generally small and principally affect data from 2000 to the present. Measured from fourth quarter to fourth quarter, industrial output is now reported to have increased at a slower rate in 2000 and to have contracted a bit more slowly in 2001 than reported earlier. The changes to total industrial production in other years are slight. The revision still places the most recent peak in total IP in June 2000 and the corresponding trough in December 2001. The 6-1/4 percent peak-to-trough decline in output is about 1/2 percentage point less than the previous estimate. After the trough, the total index showed gains in the first half of 2002, only to trend down again until mid-2003 and then to head up. The revised measures of overall capacity are only minimally different from earlier estimates. Capacity expanded rapidly during the second half of the 1990s and slowed considerably since then. The rate of industrial capacity utilization (the ratio of production to capacity) remained at a low level in the third quarter of 2003--the last full quarter of data--and was unchanged by the revision. At 74.6 percent, the operating rate is 4 percentage points below the trough of the 1990-91 recession and 6.7 percentage points below its 1972-2002 average.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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".