MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619453511 · doi:10.1111/obes.12323

Economic Policy Uncertainty Spillovers in Booms and Busts

2019· article· en· W2619453511 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giovanni Caggiano, Efrem Castelnuovo, Juan Manuel Figueres

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsEconomicsSpillover effectUnemploymentBoomRecessionCounterfactual thinkingUnemployment rateMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We estimate a nonlinear VAR to quantify the impact of US economic policy uncertainty shocks on the Canadian unemployment rate in booms and busts. We find strong evidence in favour of asymmetric spillover effects. Unemployment in Canada is shown to react more strongly to uncertainty shocks in economic busts. Such shocks explain about 13% of the variance of the 2‐year ahead forecast error of the Canadian unemployment rate in recessions vs. just 2% during economic booms. Counterfactual simulations point to a novel ‘economic policy uncertainty spillovers channel’. According to this channel, jumps in US uncertainty foster economic policy uncertainty in Canada in the first place and, because of the latter, lead to a temporary increase in the Canadian unemployment rate. Evidence of asymmetric spillover effects are also found for the UK economy, whose trade intensity with the US is low. This result is consistent with a transmission channel other than trade behind our findings.

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)0.005
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 score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations144
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Bulletin of Economics and StatisticsSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207