MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324065244 · doi:10.1515/jbnst-2023-0009

The High Frequency Firm Survey “Bundesbank Online Panel – Firms”

2023· article· en· W4324065244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dominik Boddin, Mona Köhler

Bibliographic record

VenueJahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Administration and Political Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Panel surveySurvey data collectionSurvey researchBusinessData collectionSurvey methodologyPanel dataCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Core (optical fiber)AccountingEconomicsEconometricsDemographic economicsComputer scienceGeographyTelecommunicationsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Bundesbank Online Panel – Firms (“BOP-F”) is a dataset with responses from a high frequency firm-level survey of the same name. The Bundesbank has conducted the survey since June 2020, and since July 2021 the survey has been carried out at a monthly frequency. Every month, around 3000 firms from all economic sectors, regions and size classes are surveyed. The survey consists of recurring core questions about the economic situation of firms and their expectations and special questions that usually differ from quarter to quarter. The latter often relate to current topics, for instance, climate change, digitalization, Covid-19. The data can be accessed for research and especially the possibility to combine it with other administrative Bundesbank data makes it particularly valuable for research. The objective of this paper is to describe the methodology of the data collection, the content data as well as the data’s research potential.

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)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.016

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 head0.413
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und StatistikSame topicPublic Administration and Political AnalysisFrench-language works237,207