MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2885129684 · doi:10.1111/caje.12338

How important are wealth effects on consumption in Canada?

2018· article· en· W2885129684 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Maral Kichian, Milana Mihic

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsCanada Mortgage and Housing CorporationUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)Identification (biology)Marginal propensity to consumeEconomicsEconometricsExtension (predicate logic)Econometric modelMicroeconomicsMonetary economicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We estimate the marginal propensity to consume from financial and housing wealth in Canada. The modelling framework of Carroll et al. (2011) that builds on the observed stickiness in consumption data is used. Estimations and inferences are conducted using identification‐robust methods. The results provide support for the overall modelling strategy, but there are also important differences in the identification status of the econometric equations considered. Based on the most informative specification, we find that both types of wealth—financial and housing—have significant effects in Canada and that the former has a greater effect than the latter. A simple extension of the model that also accounts for non‐price credit conditions shows that housing wealth may be relevant only during periods of easier access to credit. Finally, we find support for relatively high stickiness in consumption growth in Canada.

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)0.004
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.079 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique→Same topicHousing Market and Economics→French-language works237,207→