MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NOMINAL WAGE CONTRACTS AND THE MONETARY TRANSMISSION MECHANISM

2007· article· en· W2072247664 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Inquiry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsMonetary transmission mechanismWageMatching (statistics)Consumption (sociology)WelfareMechanism (biology)Monetary economicsMonetary policyGeneral equilibrium theoryTransmission (telecommunications)MicroeconomicsLabour economicsInflation targetingCredit channelComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce staggered and synchronized nominal wage contracts into a one‐sector monetary dynamic general equilibrium model to analyze the importance of the monetary transmission mechanism. We find a stronger monetary propagation mechanism under a synchronized setting as compared to a staggered setting. This causes the economy under staggering to be less volatile, better matching the data, as well as bringing about lower welfare costs (measured in terms of consumption). However, our results are mixed when it comses to evaluating the contemporaneous correlations and cross‐correlations. We conclude that overall staggered contracts do better in matching the U.S. economy. ( JEL E32, E51, J41)

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.180 · 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