MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085810308 · doi:10.1111/obes.12431

The Impact of Pessimistic Expectations on the Effects of COVID‐19‐Induced Uncertainty in the Euro Area*

2021· preprint· en· W3085810308 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni Pellegrino, Federico Ravenna, Gabriel Züllig

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPessimismShock (circulatory)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Inflation (cosmology)EconomicsEconometricsProduction (economics)Industrial productionMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate a monthly interacted-VAR model for euro area macroeconomic aggregates allowing for the impact of uncertainty shocks to depend on the state of the average outlook for the economy measured by survey data. We find that, in response to an uncertainty shock, the peak decrease in industrial production and inflation is around three and a half times larger during pessimistic times. We build an assessment of the role of uncertainty for a path of innovations consistent with the increase in the observed VSTOXX measure of uncertainty since the outset of the COVID-19 epidemics in February and March 2020. Industrial production is predicted to experience a year-over-year peak loss of around 9.2% in the fourth quarter of 2020, and subsequently to recover with a rebound to pre-crisis levels roughly in June 2021. The large impact is the result of an extreme shock to uncertainty occurring at a time of very negative expectations for the economic outlook. We conduct simulations that quantify the potential benefit of recovered confidence in reducing the uncertainty-induced losses associated with a possible third wave of the pandemic.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Bulletin of Economics and StatisticsSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207