MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122742508 · doi:10.1111/ecin.12065

ACCOUNTING FOR THE CYCLICAL DYNAMICS OF INCOME SHARES

2014· article· en· W3122742508 on OpenAlexaff
Enchuan Shao, Pedro Silos

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Inquiry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsReplicateBusiness cycleVolatility (finance)Factor sharesEconometricsAggregate (composite)Wage shareMonetary economicsCompetition (biology)Income sharesMacroeconomicsProduction (economics)Income distributionUnemployment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the business cycle, labor's share of output is negatively but weakly correlated with output, and it lags output by about four quarters. Profits' share is strongly pro‐cyclical. It neither leads nor lags output, and its volatility is about five times that of output. Those assumptions relate to the structure of aggregate technology and the degree of competition in factor markets. Despite much evidence in favor of time‐varying income shares, macroeconomics still lacks models that can account for their time series facts. This article constructs a model that can replicate those facts. We introduce costly entry of firms in a model with frictional labor markets and find a link between the ability of the model to replicate income shares' dynamics and the ability of the model to amplify and propagate shocks. That link is a weak correlation between the real interest rate and output, a fact in U.S. data but a feature that models of aggregate fluctuations have had difficulty achieving. (JEL E3, E25, J3, E24)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic InquirySame topicEconomic theories and modelsFrench-language works237,207