MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799837809

Shocks Pass-Through to Prices in U.S. and Canada: Evidence from Oil and Exchange Rate Markets

2018· article· en· W2799837809 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eiman Aiyash

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsExchange rateOil priceMonetary economicsFinancial economics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the degree of exchange rate and oil prices pass-through to import prices, producer prices, and consumer prices in Canada and United States over the period from 1980 to 2017 using a Structural Vector Auto-Regression (SVAR) model. The results indicate a robust evidence of a positive long-run correlation between exchange rate & oil prices and aggregate price levels. Impulse response function reveals a persistent and incomplete pass-through for both exchange rates and oil prices i.e. 0.20 and 0.04 for Canada and 0.27 and 0.25 for the U.S. That is, greater pass-through exist in an economy which has a more oil import share, more volatile monetary policy, and higher inflation rate. Consistent with impulse response function, variance decomposition reveals that oil price shocks in the United States are the major cause of the variation in the import prices and producer prices, while exchange rate fluctuations explain more of the variation in consumer prices. However, in Canada, import prices are mainly explained by exchange rate fluctuations, while oil price shocks explain the variation in producer and consumer prices.

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)0.005
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Collective Bargaining in the AcademySame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207