The Central Italy earthquake and its short-term impact on firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the short-term impact of the earthquake that hit Central Italy in 2016 on firms’ economic activity. The analysis is based on corporate balance sheet data and on a methodology that compares the performance of firms located within the seismic area with firms featuring similar characteristics but located outside it. The results show that in 2016, firms within the seismic area experienced a negative effect on revenues of over 5 per cent with respect to the counterfactual group (corresponding to about 20 per cent in the last quarter of the year, when most of the tremors occurred). In 2017, the effects lessened overall. The analysis also shows that the effects were quite heterogeneous. The negative impact is considerable for firms closer to the epicentres (core area) in both years, in particular for firms of smaller size that operate in the service sector, owing to their reliance on local and tourism-related demand. For firms located further from the epicentres (non-core area), which include the main local firms and long-standing manufacturing specializations, the effects were somewhat smaller and vanished in 2017.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 teacher head, 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".