Macroeconomic Synchronization and MonetaryUnions: Is the Euro Area more Synchronous than otherMonetary Unions and are Monetary Unions more Synchronousthan non-Monetary Unions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within currency unions, the conventional wisdom is that there should be a high degree of macroeconomic synchronicity between the constituent parts of the union. But this has not been tested compared to a base sample of countries that do not belong to a monetary union, so this paper endeavors to do exactly that. Although the US is probably one of the longest standing monetary unions in existence, there are others such as Canada and Australia, which have similar federalist structures and relatively independent States or Provinces. In this paper we take euro area data, US State macro data, Canadian provincial data and Australian state data �namely real Gross State Product (GSP), the GSP de�ator and unemployment data �and use techniques relating to recurrence plots to measure the degree of synchronicity of movement over time. The results are expected to show that for the most part monetary unions are more synchronous than non-monetary unions and that the euro area data is highly synchronous, particularly since the �financial crisis, compared to other monetary unions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".