MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256401039 · doi:10.1177/002795010218000105

Section III. Prospects for the European Union

2002· article· en· W4256401039 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Institute Economic Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBanco de España
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsRecessionInvestment (military)CurrencyEuropean unionInternational economicsAgricultural economicsGeographyMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GDP in the Euro Area fell by 0.2 per cent in the final quarter of 2001, the first quarterly decline since 1993. With the notable exception of Spain, output declined or stagnated in all the Euro Area economies that have published GDP figures for the fourth quarter. Germany and Austria experienced a technical recession in the latter half of last year, with two consecutive quarters in which output declined. Outside the Euro Area, Sweden and Denmark both recorded modest growth in the final quarter of the year. In the case of Sweden this stemmed from a weakening of the currency against the euro, while Danish growth was supported by an expansion in government expenditure. The widespread downturn in the Euro Area resulted from further contractions in corporate expenditure. Private sector investment and inventory accumulation made a negative contribution to output growth in 2001 as a whole; in contrast consumers' expenditure remained relatively resilient, especially in France and Spain. Trade contracted markedly towards the end of the year, especially in Germany and France. Export and import volumes in the Euro Area both declined by 0.6 per cent in the final quarter of the year. For the year as a whole, net trade made a strong positive contribution to growth, reflecting exceptionally weak import demand in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Finland.

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