MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284695463 · doi:10.3233/sji-220004

Economic support to European households in the aftermath of COVID-19. A cross-country comparative analysis based on quarterly sector accounts

2022· article· en· W4284695463 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alessandra Coli, Ángel Panizo Espuelas, Orestis Tsigkas

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Journal of the IAOS · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Quarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsPsychological interventionNational accountsDevelopment economicsDemographic economicsBusinessEconomic growthGeographyMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, governments in European countries adopted a wide range of containment measures to prevent the spread of the virus. These measures led to unprecedented short-term economic loss for national economies, to which governments responded with support measures targeting both households and businesses. In this article, we argue that official statistics are a key source for robust comparisons of the economic impact of COVID-19 and subsequent support measures across countries. In particular, we use Eurostat’s quarterly non-financial sector accounts and supplementary information provided by countries to estimate and compare the support received by households in 18 European countries. We focus our analysis on the second and third quarter of 2020, when national economies in Europe were impacted mostly by the containment measures. The results show some heterogeneity in the type and extent of support provided. Interestingly, while in some countries support interventions were far from making up for the loss of income, in others they far outweighed it.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.328
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Journal of the IAOSSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207