Identification des points de retournement du cycle économique au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce rapport propose d’etablir un historique des cycles economiques au Canada et de comparer les cycles estimes a travers les di?erentes regions et di?erents secteur d’activite economique. Dans un premier temps, les cycles sont estimes sur des donnees d’emplois provinciales et sectorielles par des modeles a changements de regime marko-viens (Markov-switching models). Ils sont compares a l’aide de mesures basees sur les correlations des series de probabilites de recession. Une certaine dispersion des cycles economiques semble exister au Canada, surtout entre l’est et l’ouest du pays, mais les cycles apparaissent relativement synchronises. L’exercice est e?ectue selon deux desai-sonnalisations des donnees d’emplois et il apparait qu’un lissage plus important lors de la desaisonnalisation a?ecte la saillance des points de retournement. Dans un deuxieme temps, l’approche multivariee est proposee en tablant sur une base de donnees de plus de 150 variables macroeconomiques canadiennes et l’analyse en composantes princi-pales. Les resultats suggerent encore des di?erences cycliques entre l’est et l’ouest du pays et des cycles relativement synchronises. Par contre, l’approche multivarie identi-fie les cycles plus uniformement a travers le pays que l’approche univariee basee sur l’emploi.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".