MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6927732492 · doi:10.34989/sdp-2022-12

Nowcasting Canadian GDP with Density Combinations

2022· article· en· W6927732492 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNowcastingRange (aeronautics)Sample (material)Point (geometry)Economic indicatorState (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing the state of the economy in real time is critical for policy-making, and understanding the risks to those assessments is equally important. Policy-makers are typically provided with point forecasts that contain insufficient information about risks. In contrast, predictive densities estimate the entire range of possible outcomes. This provides a method for quantifying not only the current state of the economy but also the degree of uncertainty, the tail risks and the overall balance of risks around that state. Accordingly, this paper extends the framework of Chernis and Sekkel (2018) to produce density nowcasts for Canadian real GDP growth. We compare several methods of combining predictive densities from 98 models representing four popular classes of nowcasting models. The performance of these combinations is then assessed in both real-time and pseudo-real-time out-of-sample exercises, with the limited sample real-time simulations reinforcing the importance of data revisions for nowcasting. We demonstrate that the combined densities are reliable and accurate tools for assessing the state of the economy and risks to the outlook. We highlight in particular risks at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207