MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242372716 · doi:10.1177/002795010218100103

The World Economy

2002· article· en· W4242372716 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)EconomicsPurchasing powerGross domestic productReal gross domestic productLatin AmericansEmerging marketsStimulus (psychology)World economyEconomyDevelopment economicsGeographyMonetary economicsEconomic growthMacroeconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global economic activity clearly rebounded in the first half of this year. The pick-up from the weakness in the latter half of 2001 was especially marked in North America and Asia, with GDP rising by around 1½ per cent in the first quarter in the United States, Canada and Japan. Activity in Europe was more muted, with GDP rising by 0.3 per cent in the Euro Area and 0.1 per cent in the UK. Although recent monthly data have been mixed, and a number of temporary factors that boosted growth at the turn of the year may have run their course, it appears on balance that there was a further broadly based pick-up in activity in the second quarter of the year. Outside the major industrial economies improving conditions in the IT sector have provided a significant stimulus to some emerging market economies, especially in Asia, but several economies in Latin America have seen a marked deterioration in domestic economic and financial conditions. All told, we expect world GDP growth (measured at purchasing power parities) to be around 2¾ per cent this year, little changed from our previous forecasts. This would be a modest improvement on the growth of 2½ per cent last year, but well below the trend increase of 3½ per cent per annum experienced over the past 30 years.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.005

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.261 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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