MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280225226

Technology Shock and the Business Cycle in the G7 Countries: A Structural Vector Error Correction Model

2015· preprint· en· W2280225226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Athanasie Mukantabana, Olivier Habimana

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness cycleShock (circulatory)Investment (military)EconomicsConsumption (sociology)Technology shockVariation (astronomy)Error correction modelEconometricsMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsMonetary policyPolitical scienceDynamic stochastic general equilibrium
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the importance of technology shock in explaining fluctuations over business cycles and its contractionary effects. Applying the SVEC model on quarterly data of G7 countries and accounting for long cycles in hours worked, there is evidence of a decline in employment as measured by hours worked and investment following a positive technology shock. Hours worked show a persistent decline in France and UK, and this lasts for seven years in Italy, three years in Japan, two years in the USA and Canada; and one year in Germany. However, our findings suggest that technology shocks may play only a limited role in deriving the business cycles in the G7 countries; for they only account for under 30 percent of the business cycle variation in hours and investment, under 35 percent of the business cycle variation in consumption, and under 50 percent of the business cycle variation in output of most of the G7 countries. Our findings do not support the conventional real business cycle interpretation; instead, they are consistent with the predictions of the sticky-price model.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207