MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762375284 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v9n11p82

Price Rigidity and Wage Rigidity: Market Failure or Market Efficiency

2017· article· en· W2762375284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chao Chiung Ting

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsRigidity (electromagnetism)WageSupply and demandRecessionMonetary economicsDeflationMicroeconomicsLabour economicsKeynesian economicsMonetary policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We observe that money wage and price level are not only rigid but also flexible in different business cycles. For example, there are inflationary recessions (e.g., oil crisis in U.S.) versus deflationary recessions (e.g., Great Depression between 1929 and 1933) as well as price rigidity (e.g., Great Depression between 1934 and 1939). Thus, the general price theory, including wage, should explain both price flexibility and price rigidity. When demand curve shifts during business cycle, the best strategy of the firm is to adjust capital and labor (i.e., size of the firm) so as to shift supply curve toward the same direction as demand curve shifts. If both supply curve and demand curve shift toward the same direction proportionally, there is perfect price rigidity. When product price is rigid, the firm is willing to pay previous wage. Thus, price rigidity and wage rigidity are effect (i.e., not only ex-post phenomenon that we observe but also endogenous market efficiency that arises from to the coordination of supply and demand), not exogenous market failure to disturb economy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicEconomic theories and modelsFrench-language works237,207