MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nominal rigidities and retail price dispersion in Canada over the twentieth century

2011· article· en· W1951034384 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ross Hickey, David S. Jacks

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrice dispersionInflation (cosmology)Dispersion (optics)EconomicsPrice levelMonetary economicsWholesale price indexDeflationPrice settingEconometricsProducer price indexKeynesian economicsMid priceMacroeconomicsMonetary policyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We introduce a new data set on over 230,000 monthly prices for 10 goods in 50 Canadian cities over the 40‐year period from 1910 to 1950. This information, coupled with previously published price information from the late twentieth century, allows us to present one of the first comprehensive views of nominal rigidities and retail price dispersion over the past 100 years. We find that nominal rigidities have been conditioned upon prevailing rates of inflation with a greater frequency of price changes occurring in the 1920s and the 1970s. Additionally, the process of retail market integration has followed a U‐shaped trajectory with many domestic markets being better integrated – as measured by the average dispersion of retail prices – at mid‐century than in the 1990s. We also consider the linkages between nominal rigidities and price dispersion, finding results consistent with present‐day data.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.016
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.004 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207