Who Supports the <scp>ECB</scp>? Evidence from <i>Eurobarometer</i> Survey Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper studies the determinants of the support for the European Central Bank ( ECB ) in the member countries of the European Monetary Union ( EMU ) and their evolution from 1999 to 2015. Our contribution is to examine micro‐level sociodemographic characteristics from the Eurobarometer surveys jointly with macroeconomic indicators of trust in a central bank in order to evaluate econometrically their relative importance over time. Pseudo‐panel logit estimates reveal that the former have a dynamically stable, and generally stronger influence taken altogether, when compared with the latter. Interestingly, we find that while expected inflation becomes a positive determinant of trust in the ECB after the global financial crisis ( GFC ), actual inflation gets no statistical significance. Having taken centre stage in the monetary policy debate in the Euro‐area post‐ GFC and especially since 2013, excessive disinflation and risk of deflation attracted strong attention by the public and have consequently affected its perceptions about the ECB . Accordingly, our results emphasise forward lookingness of the EMU population with regard to ‘deflation scares’ in determining trust in the ECB , in addition to disentangling the contributions of the key individual‐level sociodemographic factors, and can duly inform ECB 's communication strategy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it