MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241927968 · doi:10.1177/002795010218100105

Section III. Prospects for the European Union

2002· article· en· W4241927968 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Institute Economic Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PledgeEconomicsAgricultural economicsInternational economicsGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Institute Economic ReviewSame topicRegional Development and PolicyFrench-language works237,207