MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188229264

Measuring the Volume of Services Industries Output and Productivity: An Audit of Services Producer Price Indices in OECD Countries

2021· article· en· W3188229264 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mary O’Mahony, Lea Samek

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational productivity monitor · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflation (cosmology)EconomicsProductivityPrice indexGoods and servicesQuality (philosophy)Monetary economicsEconometricsMacroeconomicsEconomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses measurement of Services Producer Price Indices, which are important in estimating the volume of the output of services sectors. Price indices for 31 individual services activities were downloaded from the websites of National Statistical Offices for 16 OECD countries and compared to those for the UK. The results show that UK services prices tend on average to have either lower or equal price growth than in other countries, suggesting that an underestimate of services output growth is not likely to be a greater problem in the UK than in other comparable countries. Nevertheless, there may be common biases across countries due to inadequate adjustments for quality. Further analysis of measurement methods suggests a small but significant positive bias in price inflation for one commonly employed method based on time spent on the provision of services. This means that the growth in the volume of services activity may be understated in general in the group of countries considered in this article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0130.026
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational productivity monitorSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207