New Methodological Developments for the International Comparison Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper explains new methodology that was used in the 2005 International Comparison Program (ICP) that compared the relative price levels and GDP levels across 146 countries. In this round of the ICP, the world was divided into 6 regions: OECD, CIS, Africa, South America, Asia Pacific and West Asia. What is new in this round compared to previous rounds of the ICP is that each region was allowed to develop its own product list and collect prices on this list for countries in the region. The regions were then linked using another separate product list and 18 countries across the 6 regions collected prices for products on this list and this information was used to link prices and quantities across the regions. An additional complication was that the final linking of prices and volumes across regions had to respect the regional price and volume measures that were (separately) constructed by the regions. The paper also studies the properties of the Iklé Dikhanov Balk multilateral system of index numbers which was used by Africa.
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 | 0.143 | 0.271 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".