Statistics in Focus. Developments in construction during the third quarter of 2005.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Construction Building Civil Engineering EU-25 Euro-zone EU-25 Euro-zone Q4-04 0.0 -0.0 Q4-04 -0.6 -0.8 Q1-05 -1.3 -2.0 Q1-05 -3.4 -4.3 Q2-05 2.0 2.0 Q2-05 0.3 -0.5 Q3-05 0.2 0.3 Q3-05 0.9 0.3 Quarter on quarter growth rates, seasonally adjusted series Year on year growth rates, working day adjusted series 2 Statistics in focus -Industry, trade and services -4/2006 -------------------------# Production indices for constructionWhile the index of production for the construction sector increased by 0.2 % in the EU-25 between the second and third quarters of 2005, more rapid growth was recorded in a number of Member States for which data are available.Indeed, production increased by at least 1.5 % in 11 of the Member States, with growth rising as high as 6.5 % in Hungary and 6.1 % in Estonia.For the remaining Member States with data available for the third quarter of 2005, France, the United Kingdom, Cyprus and Spain were the only other countries to record increases in their respective indices of production that were at least equal to the EU-25 average.At the other end of the spectrum, output within the construction sector contracted in Luxembourg, Ireland, Austria, Belgium and Slovenia.On the basis of a comparison between the third quarters of 2004 and 2005, the working day adjusted index of production for the construction sector rose by upwards of 10 % in each of the Baltic States, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and Ireland.On the other hand, a number of Member States reported that the output of their respective construction sectors was below its level of a year before.This was notably the case in Portugal (-3.9 %) and Germany (-3.8 %), and to a lesser extent in Belgium, Slovenia, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.For building, the index of production contracted by 0.3 % in the EU-25 between the second and third quarters of 2005.The corresponding rate for the eurozone was -0.2 %.Both of these latest growth rates were in contrast to those posted in the previous quarter when output had risen by 2.2 % in the EU-25 and by 1.8 % in the euro-zone.A list of worldwide sales outlets is available at the: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.048 | 0.026 |
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".