MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2577280070 · doi:10.1162/adev_a_00127

The Long-Run Determinants of Indian Government Bond Yields

2019· article· en· W2577280070 on OpenAlexaff
Tanweer Akram, Anupam Das

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Development Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBondGovernment bondYield (engineering)EconomicsGovernment (linguistics)Interest rateMonetary economicsDebtTerm (time)Government debtShort runFiscal policyMacroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the long-term determinants of the nominal yields of Indian government bonds (IGBs). It examines whether John Maynard Keynes’ supposition that the short-term interest rate is the key driver of the long-term government bond yield holds over the long run, after controlling for key economic factors. It also appraises if the government fiscal variable has an adverse effect on government bond yields over the long run. The models estimated in this paper show that in India the short-term interest rate is the key driver of the long-term government bond yield over the long run. However, the government debt ratio does not have any discernible adverse effect on IGB yields over the long run. These findings will help policy makers to (i) use information on the current trend of the short-term interest rate and other key macro variables to form their long-term outlook about IGB yields, and (ii) understand the policy implications of the government's fiscal stance.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Development ReviewSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207