MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1515772017 · doi:10.34989/swp-1998-3

Tendance des dépenses publiques et de l'inflation et évolution comparative du taux de chômage au Canada et aux États-Unis

2021· preprint· en· W1515772017 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pierre St‐Amant, David Tessier

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsInflation (cosmology)Monetary policyWelfare economicsUnemploymentPolitical scienceKeynesian economicsMacroeconomicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors' purpose in this paper is to isolate the respective contributions of budgetary and monetary policy in Canada and the United States to the behaviour of unemployment rates in the two countries. Their method consists of estimating VAR models and using long-term identification restrictions to perform a structural analysis. Budgetary policy shocks are defined as those VAR innovations that cause a change in the trend of the public-spending-to-GDP ratio, while monetary policy shocks are those innovations that modify the trend of inflation. The major finding is that the comparative evolution of unemployment rates in Canada and the United States is linked primarily to the different budgetary policy choices in the two countries. Monetary policy does have some effect on the behaviour of unemployment rates in the two countries, but it does not explain the divergent trends, the primary cause of the U.S.-Canada unemployment gap that has been apparent since the 1970s. The authors estimate, moreover, that the trend in the Canadian unemployment rate has declined significantly over the last few years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.233 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact→French-language works237,207→