MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562006050 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511605475.010

Good versus Bad Deflation: Lessons from the Gold Standard Era

2009· book-chapter· en· W1562006050 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeflationGold standard (test)Keynesian economicsEconomicsMedicineInternal medicineMonetary policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerns expressed by the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting in May 2003 that the “balance of risks in the U.S. had shifted in favor of deflation”; similar concerns raised by an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report on deflation (2002) over the risk of deflation in Europe, especially Germany and Switzerland; and the experience of declining price levels in China and Japan have sparked new interest in the subject of deflation. In this paper, we examine the issue from a historical perspective. We focus on the experience of deflation in the late nineteenth century, when most of the countries of the world adhered to the classical gold standard. The period 1880–1914 was characterized by two decades of secular deflation followed by two decades of secular inflation.

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.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.169 · 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