chapter c h a p t e r 1 Global Prospects and Policies Slowing Global Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
following a number of quarters of growth broadly in line with World Economic Outlook (WEO) projections. The slowdown reflects both anticipated and unanticipated developments. The strong cyclical rebound in global industrial production and trade in 2010 was never expected to persist. However, in crisis-hit advanced economies, especially the United States, the handover from public to private demand is taking more time than anticipated. In addition, sovereign debt and banking sector problems in the euro area have proven much more tenacious than expected. Furthermore, the disruptions resulting from the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, as well as the spreading unrest in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and the related surge in oil prices, were major surprises. The shocks to Japan and the oil supply have had a temporary effect on global growth, which is beginning to unwind. Various considerations suggest that they may have lowered output in advanced economies by percentage point, mostly in the second quarter of 2011. According to some estimates, the number of cars manufactured worldwide may have dropped by up to 30 percent in the two months following the Japanese earthquake and tsunami because of supply-chain disruptions. For the United States, some estimates put losses on the order of 1 percentage point of GDP in the second quarter of 2011; 1 others report smaller effects of about percentage point of GDP. 2 During the second quarter of 2011, oil prices briefly rose more than 25 percent above the levels that prevailed in January 2011. It is hard to determine the extent to which prices were driven up by 1 See Macroeconomic Advisers (2011). Based on manufacturers’ announced plans, they argue that rising car assembly could add 1 percentage points to GDP in the third quarter.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.135 | 0.040 |
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".