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 One important question in the DSGE literature is whether we should detrend data when estimating the parameters of a DSGE model using the moment method. It has been common in the literature to detrend data in the same way the model is detrended. Doing so works relatively well with linear models, in part because in such cases the information that disappears from the data is usually related to the parameters that also disappear from the detrended model. Unfortunately, in heavy non‐linear DSGE models, parameters rarely disappear from detrended models, but information does disappear from the detrended data. Using a simple real business cycle model, we show that both the moment method estimators of parameters and the estimated responses of endogenous variables to a technological shock can be seriously inaccurate when detrended data are used in the estimation process. Using a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model and U.S. data, we show that detrending the data before estimating the parameters may result in a seriously misleading response of endogenous variables to monetary shocks. We suggest building the moment conditions using raw data, irrespective of the trend observed in 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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