2010, On the advantages of disaggregated data: insights from forecasting the u.s. economy in a data-rich environment, Bank of Canada Working Paper 10
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The good forecasting performance of factor models has been well documented in the literature. While many studies focus on a very limited set of variables (typically GDP and inflation), this study evaluates forecasting performance at disaggregated levels to examine the source of the improved forecasting accuracy, relative to a simple autoregressive model. We use the latest revision of over 100 U.S. time series over the period 1974-2009 (monthly and quarterly data). We employ restrictions derived from national accounting identities to derive jointly consistent forecasts for the different components of U.S. GDP. In line with previous studies, we find that our factor model yields vastly improved forecasts for U.S. GDP, relative to simple autoregressive benchmark models, but we also conclude that the gains in terms of forecasting accuracy differ substantially between GDP components. As a rule of thumb, the largest improvements in terms of forecasting accuracy are found for relatively more volatile series, with the greatest gains coming from improvements of the forecasts for investment and trade. Consumption forecasts, in contrast, perform only marginally better than a simple AR benchmark model. In addition, we show that for most GDP components, an unrestricted, direct forecast outperforms forecasts subject to national accounting identity restrictions. In contrast, GDP itself is best forecasted as the sum of individual forecasts for GDP components, but the improvement over a direct, unconstrained factor forecast is small.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".