Consumer Confidence Index – Nebraska and Survey of Nebraska Business: November 4, 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gap between business and consumer confidence closed in Nebraska during October. The Consumer Confidence Index – Nebraska (CCI-N) rose to 94.0 during October, from a value of 87.9 in September. A reading of 94.0 is still below the neutral value of 100. The outlook of Nebraska businesses was also closer to neutral than in the previous months. Businesses were only slightly optimistic in October, with respondents to the Survey of Nebraska Business neutral on sales and only slightly optimistic regarding employment. Twenty-four percent of businesses expect sales to rise over the next 6 months, while the same percent expect sales to fall. Ten percent of businesses expect to expand employment over the next six months, while 7 percent expect to reduce it. When asked about the most important issue facing their business, customer demand was mentioned most frequently, followed by regulation and the availability and quality of labor. In particular, many respondents expressed concerns about the price of agricultural commodities. Households reported a variety of financial concerns with 48 percent reporting that their primary financial concerns relate to the cost of living including health care costs, taxes, major expenses (furniture, appliances, automobiles or college tuition) and the general cost of living.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".