Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most applied researchers in macroeconomics who work with official macroeconomic statistics (such as those found in the National Accounts, the Balance of Payments, national government budgets, labor force statistics, etc.) treat data as immutable rather than subject to measurement error and revision. Some of this error may be caused by disagreement or confusion about what should be measured. Some may be due to the practical challenges of producing timely, accurate, and precise estimates. The economic importance of measurement error may be accentuated by simple arithmetic transformations of the data, or by more complex but still common transformations to remove seasonal or other fluctuations. As a result, measurement error is seemingly omnipresent in macroeconomics. Even the most widely used measures such as Gross Domestic Products (GDP) are acknowledged to be poor measures of aggregate welfare as they omit leisure and non-market production activity and fail to consider intertemporal issues related to the sustainability of economic activity. But even modest attempts to improve GDP estimates can generate considerable controversy in practice. Common statistical approaches to allow for measurement errors, including most factor models, rely on assumptions that are at odds with common economic assumptions which imply that measurement errors in published aggregate series should behave much like forecast errors. Fortunately, recent research has shown how multiple data releases may be combined in a flexible way to give improved estimates of the underlying quantities. Increasingly, the challenge for macroeconomists is to recognize the impact that measurement error may have on their analysis and to condition their policy advice on a realistic assessment of the quality of their available information.
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 | 0.150 | 0.251 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".