Using the yield curve to forecast economic growth
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
Abstract This paper finds the yield curve to have a well‐performing ability to forecast the real gross domestic product growth in the USA, compared to professional forecasters and time series models. Past studies have different arguments concerning growth lags, structural breaks, and ultimately the ability of the yield curve to forecast economic growth. This paper finds such results to be dependent on the estimation and forecasting techniques employed. By allowing various interest rates to act as explanatory variables and various window sizes for the out‐of‐sample forecasts, significant forecasts from many window sizes can be found. These seemingly good forecasts may face issues, including persistent forecasting errors. However, by using statistical learning algorithms, such issues can be cured to some extent. The overall result suggests, by scientifically deciding the window sizes, interest rate data, and learning algorithms, many outperforming forecasts can be produced for all lags from one quarter to 3 years, although some may be worse than the others due to the irreducible noise of the data.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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