Section III. Prospects for the European Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outcome for growth in the Euro Area in the first quarter of 2002 was slightly weaker than our April projections. Output rose by 0.3 per cent relative to the previous quarter, following a decline of the same magnitude in the final quarter of last year. The recovery stemmed primarily from a sharp drop in imports of 0.8 per cent, rather than a pickup in domestic or external demand. The weaker outcome for the first quarter, coupled with recent developments in financial markets, dampens the outlook for the year as a whole. Industrial production rose by 0.8 per cent in March, but declined by 0.7 per cent in April and edged up by only 0.1 per cent in May, supporting our expectation that recovery will be gradual. We forecast growth of 1¼ per cent in the Euro Area this year, but anticipate a stronger improvement next year helped by a recovery of domestic demand. This will be supported by tax cuts in several countries, despite the fact that the Euro Area's three largest economies appear unlikely to meet their Stability Pact pledge of achieving a budget at or close to balance by 2004. We expect output in the Euro Area to grow by about 2½ per cent next year, and by about 2½ -2¾ per cent per annum throughout the medium-term.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.016 |
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".