MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2941348851 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v11n6p1

Core Inflation, Expectations and Inflation Dynamics in Brazil

2019· article· en· W2941348851 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antônio Clécio de Brito, Elano Ferreira Arruda, Ivan Castelar, Nicolino Trompieri Neto, Cristiano da Silva Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsInflation (cosmology)Core inflationPhillips curveHeteroscedasticityIndexationEconometricsNew Keynesian economicsInflation targetingMonetary policyKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work investigates the adequacy of core inflation measures as indicators of forward-looking expectations in the hybrid new Keynesian Phillips curve (HNKPC) for the Brazilian economy. For that purpose, we use monthly data between January 2002 and August 2015 and the heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation consistent generalized method of moments (HAC-GMM). The results indicate that the HNKPC is a robust mechanism to model Brazilian inflation dynamics in the period analyzed; that the recent increase in the degree of indexation of the Brazilian economy seems to have contributed to the formation of a stronger inertial component of inflation; and also that the core inflation measures appear to be potential indicators to model forward-looking expectations in the HNKPC in Brazil. Furthermore, the inflation forecasts extracted from these models are statistically similar to those generated by models that use market prognoses from the Focus survey published by the Central Bank of Brazil. Therefore, the core inflation measures appear to have adequately anchored the inflation expectations in Brazil in the period analyzed.

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)0.010
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact→French-language works237,207→