Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates several theoretical and practical problems in index numbers. In Chapter 2 a hedonic elementary price index for accessing the Internet in Canada is constructed. We find that the quality-adjusted price index declines at about 15% per year. Detailed data are readily available on-line. We discuss the use of different functional forms in the regression, their ease of use and performance, and compare the result with the matched model approach. Problems in using the Box-Cox transformation and in handling packages with unlimited access are also discussed. Chapter 3 studies the problems associated with the treatment of seasonal commodities in a consumer price index. Economic assumptions behind various commonly used methods are examined from the cost-of-living perspective. A new theoretical justification based on the theory of preference change is provided for the maximum overlap method. Empirical studies using a particular data set show that indices based on various approaches give substantially different results. Direct measurement techniques have recently been employed by some statistical agencies for government output components in the SNA. These methods use proxies and indicators for outputs due to the inherent lack of market valuations. Chapter 4 investigates the pros and cons of these new approaches and compares them with the traditional cost method. This leads us to take a deeper look at the purposes, objectives, and uses of the SNA. The current method can be justified from a collective household point of view, but the lack of direct output data frustrates students of productivity analysis. By taking the economic approach in index number theory, some direct measurement methods can be compatible with the cost-of-living approach in the CPI. Using implicit expected utility theory, a money metric for utility derived from playing a lottery game is developed in Chapter 5. Using a kinked parametric functional form, outputs of the Canadian Lotto 6/49 are estimated. Results show that this direct economic approach yields an average output three times that of the official GDP. The estimated price elasticity of demand -0.67 closely resembles results for the U.K. in previous studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".