MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2765289035 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v9n11p163

Comparative Analysis of the Stability of Money Demand between Côte d’Ivoire And Ghana: An Application of ARDL Model

2017· article· en· W2765289035 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yao Kouadio Ange-Patrick, Drama Bédi Guy Hervé

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsDistributed lagDemand curveCote d ivoireAggregate demandDemand for moneyStability (learning theory)CointegrationMacroeconomicsMonetary economicsShort runPrice of stabilityMonetary policyEconometricsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper empirically examined the broad money demand function and its stability in two West African countries namely Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana covering the period of 1980 to 2015 using the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) Bounds testing procedure. The empirical results confirm the stability of the money demand function and support the choice of M2 as a viable instrument for policy implementation in both countries cited above. The study also demonstrates that a long-run relationship exists between money aggregate (M2) and its determinants during the study period. In fact, the real income tends to be the most significant factor explaining the demand for broad money in both countries. In addition, the overall short run estimation of our model is statistically significant for Cote d’Ivoire and insignificant for Ghana at the conventional level. This means that money demand is stable for Cote d’Ivoire in short run and unstable for Ghana in the same period. It is recommended that monetary policy authorities should continue to implement policies that will reinforce macroeconomic stability and facilitate economic growth.

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)0.006
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact→French-language works237,207→