MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154035703 · doi:10.1007/s41549-021-00055-5

Predicting the German Economy: Headline Survey Indices Under Test

2021· article· en· W3154035703 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Cycle Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGerman Economic Analysis & Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadlineNowcastingGross domestic productTertiary sector of the economyGermanSample (material)Economic indicatorService (business)EconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)PublicationGross value addedPredictive powerPrivate sectorManufacturing sectorBusinessEconomyMacroeconomicsAdvertisingGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This analysis investigates the predictive power of the headline indices of the four most important German survey providers. We conduct an out-of-sample, real-time forecast experiment for growth of total and private sector gross domestic product and growth of gross value added in both the manufacturing and the service sector. All providers publish valuable leading indicators for both GDP measures, with some advantages for the ifo indicators and the Economic Sentiment Indicator, respectively. For the manufacturing sector, indicators provided by the ifo Institute are clearly superior. For the service sector, all indicators prove to have a similar nowcasting performance, whereas the Economic Sentiment Services of the Centre for European Research is preferable for one quarter-ahead predictions.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.220 · 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