MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083883129

U.S. productivity grew at weak 0.4 percent rate in Q1

2018· other· en· W7083883129 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Archive (Internet Archive) · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityQuarter (Canadian coin)Total factor productivityProduction (economics)Percentage point
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

U.S. productivity grew at an annual rate of just 0.4 percent in the first quarter, even weaker than initially estimated, while labor costs rose at a bit faster pace. U.S. productivity grew at an annual rate of just 0.4 percent in the first quarter, which was even weaker than initially estimated.The Labor Department says the January-March productivity increase was revised down from the 0.7 percent gain initially estimated a month ago. The rise in productivity was only marginally better than the 0.3 percent increase in the fourth quarter but below the 2.6 percent third quarter increase.Labor costs rose 2.9 percent, up from an initial estimate of a 2.7 percent gain in the first quarter. Productivity, which is a key factor determining how fast the economy can grow and how much living standards can increase, has been anemic throughout the economic recovery.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternet Archive (Internet Archive)Same topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207