MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981379667 · doi:10.1002/soej.12406

U.S. Monetary Policy since the 1950s and the Changing Content of FOMC Minutes

2019· article· en· W2981379667 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern Economic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityBalsillie School of International Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen market operationContent (measure theory)Benchmark (surveying)Tone (literature)DictionEconomicsMonetary policyLagMonetary economicsEconometricsMathematicsComputer scienceLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Content analysis is used to analyze 60 years of Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) minutes. Since there is no unique algorithm to quantify content, two different algorithms are applied. Wordscores compares content relative to a chosen benchmark, while DICTION is an alternative algorithm that is specifically designed to capture various elements that capture the sentiment or tone conveyed in a text. The resulting indicators are then incorporated into a VAR. The content of FOMC minutes is found to be significantly related to the state of the economy, notably real GDP growth, and changes in the fed funds rate. However, the relationship between content and macroeconomic conditions changes after 1993 when minutes are made public with a lag. Both content indicators also suggest substantive changes in the content of FOMC minutes since the 1950s in terms of the FOMC's dovishness or hawkishness.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.160 · 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