Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many central banks conduct economic field research involving in-depth interviews with external parties. But very little is known about how this information is used and its importance in the formation of monetary policy. We address this gap in the literature through a thematic analysis of open-ended interviews with senior central bank economic and policy staff who work closely with policy decision-makers. We find that these central bankers consider information from field research programs not just useful but also an essential input for monetary policy making. They use this information in conjunction with quantitative tools primarily to inform their near-term forecasts. The information is considered most valuable at potential turning points in the economy when uncertainty about the pace of economic growth is heightened (in the advent of large shocks to the economy) and when timely official data are not available or are viewed as unreliable. Senior staff also place a high value on maintaining a reliable and credible sample of representative economic agents that can be accessed on an ongoing basis and very quickly when required.
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 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 | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".