MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Testing the Unemployment Hysteresis for G-20 Countries

2018· book-chapter· en· W2886153098 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Veli Yılancı, Mahmut Ünsal Şaşmaz

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in logistics, operations, and management science book series · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnit rootUnemploymentHysteresisUnit root testEconomicsAugmented Dickey–Fuller testTest (biology)Unit (ring theory)Demographic economicsCointegrationEconometricsMacroeconomicsMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter, the authors analyze the validity of unemployment hysteresis for G-20 countries, namely Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, and USA for the 1960–2014 period. For this purpose, they examine the stationarity of the unemployment rates by using ADF unit root test and Fourier ADF (FADF) unit root tests. FADF unit root test is a recently introduced test whose power is not affected by the number, location, and form of the breaks. The results of the tests show that the unemployment hysteresis is valid for some of the countries.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueAdvances in logistics, operations, and management science book seriesSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207