Philippines Quarterly Update, March 2012 : From Stability to Prosperity for All
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
The Philippine economy grew slower than \n expected at 3.7 percent in 2011, held back by weak public \n spending and external demand. In the fourth quarter (Q4), \n growth slightly improved at 3.7 percent. As in past \n quarters, growth was driven by remittance-fueled household \n consumption, which grew by 6.7 percent. The \n government's disbursement acceleration plan was \n partially successful and contributed 1.3 percentage points \n (ppt) to gross domestic product, or GDP growth in Q4, up \n from 0.3 ppt in Q3, but this was not enough to push growth \n up to the targeted level of around five percent. On the \n production side, the services sector, including the \n fast-growing business process outsourcing (BPO) industry, \n continued to drive growth. Industry, in particular exports \n manufacturing, was buffeted by weaker demand, while \n agriculture suffered from typhoon damages, highlighting the \n need to improve disaster and risk management. The country is \n benefiting from strong macroeconomic fundamentals, political \n stability, and a popular government that is seen by many as \n committed to improving governance and reducing poverty. \n Several reforms have successfully started, notably in public \n financial management. However, the window of opportunity is \n narrowing given elections in 2013 and 2016 and the \n historical difficulty of moving forward with reforms when \n the campaign period kicks in. Now is the time to implement \n the reforms needs to accelerate growth, create jobs, and \n reduce poverty.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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