MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160595246 · doi:10.1017/s1365100512000247

THE CASE FOR DIVISIA MONEY TARGETING

2012· article· en· W2160595246 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

VenueMacroeconomic Dynamics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivisia indexDivisia monetary aggregates indexEconomicsVolatility (finance)Bivariate analysisEconometricsMonetary economicsMonetary policyCentral bankQuantitative easingMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we investigate the relationship between money growth uncertainty and the level of economic activity in the United States. We pay explicit attention to the Divisia monetary aggregates. In doing so, we use the new vintage of the data [called MSI (monetary services indices) by the St. Louis Fed], together with the simple sum monetary aggregates, over the period from 1967:1 to 2011:3. In the context of a bivariate VARMA, GARCH-in-mean, asymmetric BEKK model, we show that increased Divisia money growth volatility (irrespective of the level of aggregation and the method of calculation) is associated with a lower average growth rate of real economic activity. However, there are no effects of simple-sum money growth volatility on real economic activity, except with the Sum M1 and perhaps Sum M2M aggregates. We conclude that monetary policies that focus on the Divisia monetary aggregates and target their growth rates will contribute to higher overall economic growth.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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