MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

France

2002· book-chapter· en· W4256050058 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD economic outlook · 2002
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsFiscal sustainabilityInflation (cosmology)DebtMonetary economicsUnemploymentInvestment (military)Consumption (sociology)Federal budgetExchange rateEconomic policyQuarter (Canadian coin)Fiscal policyMacroeconomicsFinanceFiscal year

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After picking up sharply at the beginning of the year, GDP growth slowed to 1.6 per cent in the second quarter. Demand was supported by relatively robust personal and government consumption expenditure, while investment spending and stockbuilding remained weak. Growth has lost momentum during the second half of the year as consumer and business confidence weakened markedly. The slowdown appears to have halted the trend rise in core inflation, while the unemployment rate has remained broadly stable at a level close to its structural rate. Looking forward, growth is projected to remain moderate before slower rates of destocking and a pick-up in external demand prompt a recovery, with output increasing by somewhat less than 2 and 3 per cent in each of 2003 and 2004. In its execution, the 2002 Budget represented a substantial easing of fiscal policy, with almost half of the slippage being structural in nature. The draft budget for 2003 does not include well identified measures to redress these overruns, so that the fiscal situation may deteriorate further if cyclical weakness persists. In order to prevent the overall debt from exceeding 60 per cent of GDP and so as to ensure the future sustainability of public finances, especially in the face of rising pension obligations, substantial budgetary savings will need to be found in the near future.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3810.209

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOECD economic outlookSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207