MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779864115 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n1p213

Empirical Study of Relationship between Money Supply and Inflation Based on Data from New Standardised Reporting Format

2017· article· en· W2779864115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Satrugan Sinah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEconomic Growth and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflation (cosmology)Monetary policyMoney supplyOrder (exchange)EconomicsMonetary economicsIndex (typography)EstimationConsumer price index (South Africa)Empirical researchEmpirical evidenceCentral bankBusinessMacroeconomicsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is based on data obtained from the new standardised reporting format introduced by International Monetary Fund. The empirical estimation of relationship between money supply and inflation leads to development of a model, which can be used by policy makers while formulating monetary policy. This model is based on new standardised reporting format, which has a broader approach in terms of capturing monetary aggregates in a country. Thus, as opposed to findings of many earlier studies, which used non-standardised data, this paper shows that an increase in money supply leads to an increase in consumer price index. ly. Finally, the study found that the RGDP of trade partner and bilateral real exchange rate are not statistically significant. empirical evidence linking bank customers’ participation in financial ads to their attitude. Managerially, this study informs bank managers regarding effective management of financial advert contents in order to influence bank customer’s attitude towards financial adverts.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicEconomic Growth and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207