Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concern about globalization has rekindled interest in a longstanding issue—the implications for macroeconomic stability of alternative monetary/exchange–rate policies. This paper re–examines the issue, and it assesses the robustness of several recommendations by comparing the results of a series of small open–economy macro models. All involve model–consistent exchange–rate expectations and (through the existence of intermediate imports) supply–side effects of exchange–rate changes. The first model is descriptive, while the second and third allow for more thorough–going micro foundations and forward–looking behavior—first on the supply side (with multiperiod overlapping contracts), and then on the demand side (with the Ramsey theory of consumption). To clarify the impact of each change in model specification, they are introduced one at a time, and the same questions are posed at each stage. Two issues are examined—the implications of alternative monetary policies for (i) the effect on output of a one–time (unexpected) change in demand, and (ii) the effect on the amplitude of the business cycle that accompanies an ongoing (anticipated) cycle in demand. Three policies are compared: price–level targeting, wage–rate targeting, and exchange–rate targeting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".