US unemployment rate: Federal Reserve versus private information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study evaluates the Federal Reserve (Fed) initial and final forecasts of the unemployment rate for 1983Q1-2018Q4. The Fed initial forecasts in a typical quarter are made in the first month (or immediately after), and the final forecasts are made in the third month of the quarter. The analysis also includes the private forecasts, which are made close to the end of the second month of the quarter. Design/methodology/approach In evaluating the multi-period forecasts, the study tests for systematic bias, directional accuracy, symmetric loss, equal forecast accuracy, encompassing and orthogonality. For every test equation, it employs the Newey–West procedure in order to obtain the standard errors corrected for both heteroscedasticity and inherent serial correlation. Findings Both Fed and private forecasts beat the naïve benchmark and predict directional change under symmetric loss. Fed final forecasts are more accurate than initial forecasts, meaning that predictive accuracy improves as more information becomes available. The private and Fed final forecasts contain distinct predictive information, but the latter produces significantly lower mean squared errors. The results are mixed when the study compares the private with the Fed initial forecasts. Additional results indicate that Fed (private) forecast errors are (are not) orthogonal to changes in consumer expectations about future unemployment. As such, consumer expectations can potentially help improve the accuracy of private forecasts. Originality/value Unlike many other studies, this study focuses on the unemployment rate, since it is an important indicator of the social cost of business cycles, and thus its forecasts are of special interest to policymakers, politicians and social scientists. Accurate unemployment rate forecasts, in particular, are essential for policymakers to design an optimal macroeconomic policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".