Prospects for the European Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first half of this year, the Euro Area economy continued to lag behind much of the rest of the world. After stagnating in the first quarter, GDP contracted by 0.1 per cent in the second quarter following an average quarterly expansion of 0.3 per cent in 2002. The appreciation of the euro is largely to blame for this development, taking a toll on exports. The weak outcome for the first half of the year, coupled with the appreciation in the nominal effective exchange rate by about 6.9 per cent over the same period and weak prospects for private investment, dampens the outlook for the year as a whole. Industrial production declined by 0.4 per cent in August, supporting our assessment that a Euro Area recovery is not yet underway. In light of the most recent evidence, we have revised our estimate for Euro Area growth in 2003 downward to just below ½ per cent. However, we continue to expect a more pronounced pick-up in growth to around 1¾ per cent in 2004, as domestic and external demand both strengthen. Output growth in the Euro Area is projected to return towards trend levels of about 2½-2¾ per cent per annum in 2005. The output gap in the Euro Area is expected to widen further in the second half of 2003, with the economy returning to capacity output in 2006.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.017 |
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".