MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1554411802

What Caused the Great Moderation? Some Cross-Country Evidence

2005· article· en· W1554411802 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter M. Summers

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometric Reviews · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreat ModerationEconomicsLuckModerationVolatility (finance)Developed countryDeveloping countryInternational economicsDevelopment economicsMonetary economicsEconomic growthFinancial economics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last 20 years or so, the volatility of aggregate economic activity has fallen dramatically in most of the industrialized world. The timing and nature of the decline vary across countries, but the phenomenon has been so widespread and persistent that it has earned the label: ?the Great Moderation.? A growing body of research has focused on the Great Moderation and its possible explanations, especially as it applies to the U.S. experience. The literature documents the international dimension of this volatility reduction, but so far little is known about the possible causes from a cross-country perspective. Summers shows why the Great Moderation has indeed been a common feature of much of the industrialized world. Specifically, he focuses on the reduction in the volatility of GDP growth that occurred in the G-7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and Australia. He uses international evidence to evaluate the merits of three likely explanations. He concludes that, from an international perspective, good luck in the form of smaller energy price shocks is not a compelling explanation for widespread moderation of GDP growth volatility. Rather, the Great Moderation is more likely due to better monetary policy outcomes and improved inventory management techniques.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations191
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconometric ReviewsSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207