MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988191215

Just how fragile is the Australian economy

2018· article· en· W2988191215 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Schroeder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional resilience and development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGross domestic productReal gross domestic productEconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Gross private domestic investmentGross domestic incomeEconomyDemographic economicsGeographyMonetary economicsGross incomeMacroeconomicsProduction (economics)Market economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strength of Australia's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has reinforced the belief that the economy remains resilient. Is it? Indeed, Australia's GDP growth since 1993 has been stellar, by comparison with other economically developed nations. GDP growth has consistently ranged between 2 - 4 percent over 1993 to 2017, for an annual average of 3.5 per cent. Recent quarterly observations for 2017 suggest some moderation: 2.0 per cent for 12 months ending June and 0.6 percent for 3 months ending September (versus June quarter). However, changes made to the definition of GDP over the years could be obscuring, rather than clarifying, the true economic health of an economy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.008

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.177 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRegional resilience and developmentFrench-language works237,207