MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245887866 · doi:10.1177/002795010318500106

Section III. Prospects for the European Union

2003· article· en· W4245887866 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N A

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Institute Economic Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsInvestment (military)Real gross domestic productPercentage pointAgricultural economicsDemographic economicsInternational economicsMonetary economicsGeographyPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The outcome for growth in the Euro Area in the first quarter of 2003 was slightly weaker than our April projections. GDP grew by a marginal 0.1 per cent relative to the previous quarter, down from an average of 0.8 per cent over the year 2002 as a whole. The continued appreciation of the euro is largely to blame for this development, taking a toll on exports. The weaker outcome for the first quarter, coupled with the appreciation in the nominal effective exchange rate by about 6.9 per cent in the first half of this year, as well as significantly weaker prospects for private investment dampen the outlook for the year as a whole. Industrial production rose by 0.4 per cent in April, after a decline of 0.7 per cent in March and an increase of 0.3 per cent in February, supporting our expectation that recovery will be only gradual. In light of the most recent evidence, we have cut our estimate for Euro Area growth in 2003 by half, down to just over ½ per cent. However, we continue to anticipate a more pronounced improvement in 2004, as domestic and external demand both strengthen. We expect output growth in the Euro Area to return towards trend levels of about 2½-2¾ per cent per annum from 2005-2009. This is consistent with NIESR's output gap estimates for the Euro Area, which show the economy returning to capacity output in 2005.

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)0.004
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 score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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