MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100007217

Testing the Unemployment Hysteresis in G7 Countries: A Fresh Evidence from Fourier Threshold Unit Root Test

2020· article· en· W3100007217 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Veli Yılancı, Yılmaz Özkan, Abdulkadir Altinsoy

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanian Journal of Economic Forecasting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnit rootUnemploymentUnit root testEconomicsHysteresisRecessionInflation (cosmology)Structural breakTest (biology)EconometricsUnit (ring theory)MacroeconomicsCointegrationMathematicsPhysicsBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we test the validity of unemployment hysteresis in G7 countries over the period of 1991 – 2019 using monthly data by suggesting a new unit root test that considers both structural breaks and nonlinearity that we entitled as Fourier Threshold Unit Root (FTUR) test. The results of the test show that unemployment rates of Canada, Japan, and the USA are nonlinear. Thus, for these countries we apply the FTUR test, while for the remaining series, we employ the Fourier ADF unit root test. The results of unit root tests show that unemployment hysteresis holds in Canada, France, and the United Kingdom, while NonAccelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment applies in Germany, and Italy. We could not reject the null of a unit root for Japan and the USA only in the second regime, where the unemployment series are rising. So, we conclude that the policymakers of Japan and the USA should follow fiscal stabilization policies only in recession periods.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.008 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomanian Journal of Economic ForecastingSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207