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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to revisit the evidence for purchasing power parity (PPP) using long, low‐frequency data (over 100 years) for 23 organization for economic co‐operation and development (OECD) countries against each of four different base currencies – the Deutsch mark, the Japanese yen, the British pound, and the US dollar. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses standard unit root tests and level and trend stationarity tests, and also investigates the robustness of the results to alternative testing methodologies from statistical physics, such as Lo's modified rescaled range statistic and the Hurst exponent. Findings The results indicate that the theory of PPP does not hold. Originality/value Motivated by the mixed results from previous research on the validity of the theory of PPP, the robustness of standard unit root and stationarity tests to alternative testing methodologies are investigated. In particular, the paper uses two tests from statistical physics – Lo's modified R / S statistic and the Hurst exponent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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