MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015724388 · doi:10.1353/mcb.2006.0055

How to Compare Taylor and Calvo Contracts: A Comment on Michael Kiley

2006· article· en· W2015724388 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of money credit and banking · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDurham UniversityCardiff UniversityUniversity of GlasgowUniversity of BirminghamUniversity of WarwickUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of St AndrewsLondon Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of ExeterUniversity of EssexYork UniversityGeorge Washington UniversityVanderbilt University
KeywordsAutocorrelationTaylor seriesEconomicsEconometricsMathematicsMathematical economicsStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent paper, Michael Kiley argued that the Calvo model of price adjustment is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from the Taylor model. What we show is that Kiley (along with most other people) are choosing the wrong parameterization to compare the two models. In effect they are comparing the average age of Calvo contracts with the completed length of Taylor contracts. When we compare the average age of Taylor contracts with the average of Calvo, the differences become much smaller and easier to understand. We also show that autocorrelation of output can be larger in a Taylor economy than in the age-equivalent Calvo economy.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.184 · 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