The future of macroeconomics : a discussion of a paper by John Muellbauer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let me start out by saying that, in a 10 - minute discussion it's difficult to do justice to everything that's in John's very interesting paper. I'm going to draw on what I take to be three themes. The first theme, that John did not say a huge amount about , is that clearly some of the DSGE models we've been working with have not been particularly successful. \n \nSecondly, John mentioned a couple of people that he's found very insightful. One is David Hendry and one is Joe Stiglitz and I echo that sentiment. I n my first job at the University of Toronto I went to see Joe Stiglitz give a talk. At the time, I didn't really have a clear thesis topic. My thesis ended up being inspired by that talk; so the notion that there are some very important insights in what we call the information revolution in economics is one that I endorse wholeheartedly. \n \nFinally, one of the things I'd like to talk about in this discussion is what we can learn from the information revolution. My view is that what we can learn is perhaps even a little more radical than some of the things that John drew attention to. \n
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it