Flow of conjunctural information and forecast of euro area economic activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Euro area GDP and components are nowcast and forecast one quarter ahead. Based on a dataset of 163 series comprising the relevant monthly indicators, simple bridge equations with one explanatory variable are estimated for each. The individual forecasts generated by each equation are then pooled, using six weighting schemes including Bayesian ones. To take into consideration the release calendar of each indicator, six forecasts are compiled independently during the quarter, each based on different information sets: different indicators, different individual equations and finally different weights to aggregate information. The information content of the various blocks of information at different points in time for each GDP component is then discussed. It appears that taking into account the information flow results in significant changes in the weight allocated to each block of information, especially when the first month of hard data becomes available. This conclusion, reached for all the components and most of the weighting scheme, supports and extends the findings of Giannone, Reichlin and Small (2006) and Banbura and Rünstler (2007). An out-of-sample forecast comparison exercise is also carried out for each component and GDP directly. The forecast performance is found to vary widely across components. Two weighting schemes are found to outperform the equal weighting scheme in almost all cases. One-quarter ahead, the direct forecast of GDP is found to outperform the bottom-up approach. However, the nowcast resulting in the lowest forecast errors is derived from the bottom-up approach. JEL Classification: C22, C53, E17
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".