The failure of the monetary exchange rate model for the Canadian‐U.S. dollar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper the validity of the monetary exchange rate model in the long run for the Canadian‐U.S. dollar exchange rate is examined. The primary test employed is the Johansen (1991) and Johansen and Juselius (1990) cointegration technique. The effects of dummy variables and lag specification on the statistical inference are considered, and Monte Carlo simulations based on the estimated parameters are employed. Despite the use of the longest data set yet for the Canadian case, no evidence is found in favour of the monetary exchange rate model using the Johansen procedures. This result is confirmed by several other cointegration procedures. JEL Classification: F31; F41 La faillite du modèle monétaire du taux de change pour les dollars canadien et américain. Ce mémoire examine le modèle monétaire du taux de change pour savoir s'il est validé par l'expérience canado‐américaine en longue période. Le test principal utilisé est la technique de cointégration de Johansen (1991) et Johansen et Juselius (1990). Les effets des variables fictives et de la spécification de la structure de délais sur l'inférence statistique sont considérés, et on utilise des simulations de Monte Carlo fondées sur les paramètres calibrés. Malgré le fait qu'on fait appel à la plus longue série chronologique utilisée dans ce type d'analyse à ce jour, on ne trouve aucun support du modèle monétaire du taux de change en utilisant les procédures de Johansen. Ce résultat est confirmé par l'utilisation de plusieurs autres procédures de cointégration.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".