MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563942437 · doi:10.1002/for.2501

Extracting information shocks from the Bank of England inflation density forecasts

2017· article· en· W2563942437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carlos Díaz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forecasting · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de CantabriaUniversity of Leicester
KeywordsInflation (cosmology)Shock (circulatory)EconometricsVariable (mathematics)Variance (accounting)Ex-anteSet (abstract data type)EconomicsMeasure (data warehouse)Point (geometry)Quarter (Canadian coin)Computer scienceMacroeconomicsMathematicsData miningAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper shows how to extract the density of information shocks from revisions of the Bank of England's inflation density forecasts. An information shock is defined in this paper as a random variable that contains the set of information made available between two consecutive forecasting exercises and that has been incorporated into a revised forecast for a fixed point event. Studying the moments of these information shocks can be useful in understanding how the Bank has changed its assessment of risks surrounding inflation in the light of new information, and how it has modified its forecasts accordingly. The variance of the information shock is interpreted in this paper as a new measure of ex ante inflation uncertainty that measures the uncertainty that the Bank anticipates information perceived in a particular quarter will pose on inflation. A measure of information absorption that indicates the approximate proportion of the information content in a revised forecast that is attributable to information made available since the last forecast release is also proposed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.124 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ForecastingSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207