MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2110862256 · doi:10.7202/011394ar

La persistance des chocs au Canada, 1870-1996

2005· article· fr· W2110862256 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Malika Hamdad, Tarek M. Harchaoui

Bibliographic record

VenueL Actualité économique · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce travail examine la persistance des chocs de la production agrégée dans une perspective multisectorielle. Cette approche permet de décomposer la persistance des chocs de la production en deux composantes : la première due à des chocs d’origine macroéconomique explicitement identifiés et la seconde à des chocs « autres », probablement d’origine sectorielle. Ce cadre d’analyse a été appliqué à des séries historiques sur la production sectorielle de l’économie canadienne pour les périodes d’avant-guerre et d’après-guerre, pour lesquelles les chocs macroéconomiques explicitement identifiés ont été, respectivement, le choc du blé de 1890 et le choc pétrolier de 1973. Les résultats présentés dans ce papier ont a) confirmé dans le contexte canadien que l’approche désagrégée fournit des estimations plus faibles et résolument plus fiables de la mesure de la persistance que ceux obtenus au moyen d’une approche agrégée univariée ; b) permis de montrer que les effets des chocs ont eu tendance à devenir légèrement plus persistants à travers le temps ; et c) mesuré le degré auquel le choc du blé a contribué à provoquer une déviation permanente sur la production de l’économie canadienne et ainsi corroborer la thèse traditionaliste de l’histoire économique du Canada.

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)0.003
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL Actualité économique→Same topicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact→French-language works237,207→