MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763269052 · doi:10.1016/j.rfe.2017.10.002

Real interest parity: Evidence from trade partnerships

2017· article· en· W2763269052 on OpenAlexaff
Mustapha Ibn Boamah

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Economics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsInternational economicsInterest rate parityUnit rootInterest rateReal interest rateParity (physics)European unionPrice indexGeneral partnershipInternational tradeMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsEconometricsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigates real interest parity (RIP) in trade partnerships, and whether RIP depends on the type of trade partnership, using short term interest rates and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) obtained from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) database between 1975 and 2016. The investigation employs unit root and stationarity tests on interest rate differentials to study RIP between countries using Germany, United States, and Japan as base countries for selected countries in the European Union (EU), member countries of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and selected Asian countries respectively. The results show evidence in favor of RIP in the selected EU countries. The interest rate differentials of Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and the UK with respect to Germany confirms a long‐run relationship and real interest rate parity. There is also evidence to support the RIP in the other trade partnerships. With the exception of Mexico, the interest rate differentials for all the countries are stationary, and each quickly reverts to its mean.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.010 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial EconomicsSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207