Conservatism and information rigidity of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's growth forecast: Quarter‐century assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study assesses the performance of the GDP growth forecasts by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for 38 countries between 1994 and 2019. It presents the following results. First, forecast performances improved over time. Second, the projections were mostly conservative, except for some countries with optimistic next‐year forecasts. Third, these forecasts were broadly rational once asymmetric loss was assumed. Fourth, the magnitude of improvement in forecast performance, conservativeness, and optimism were likely to differ across regions, Commonwealth of Independent States membership status, and income levels. Fifth, information rigidity was mostly found to be present. Sixth, there was less information rigidity in the short‐term horizon in recent years, suggesting that improvement in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's forecasting practice and expanded information availability in transition economies enhanced its efficiency.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it