INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE: NEW APPROACHES TO LEARNING IN MACROECONOMIC MODELS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research questions addressed by the literature on learning in macroeconomics can be classified into four categories: First, there are issues related to the convergence and stability under learning in models with unique rational expectations equilibria. Authors here are concerned mainly with the learnability of a rational expectations equilibrium, as a measure of that equilibrium's plausibility as an observed outcome in an actual economy. Second, there are issues related to convergence and stability under learning in models with multiple rational expectations equilibria. In this case, learnability serves as an equilibrium selection device, helping economists decide which equilibria are the more likely to be actually observed among the many that exist under rational expectations. A third set of issues involves the examination of transitional dynamics that accompanies the equilibrium selection process. Following some type of unexpected strcutural change or change in policy regime, for instance, economies necessarily must follow temporary transitional paths to a rational expectations equilibrium associated with the new reality. Learning is sometimes used to help model such transitional dynamics. Finally, there are issues related to the examination of learning dynamics that are intrinsically different, even asymptotically, from the dynamics of the rational expectations versions of the models. In these cases, the learning dynamics do not converge to the rational expectations fixed points, and (unexploitable) expectational errors persist indefinitely. Some authors have tried to make use of this possibility in order to build explanations of otherwise puzzling macroeconomic phenomena based on constantly changing expectations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.015 |
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 it