Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we are motivated by the fact that little is known about the relative performance of broad and narrow Divisia monetary aggregates, and by recent work that tests and rejects the appropriateness of the aggregation assumptions that underlie the various monetary aggregates published by the Federal Reserve as well as a large number of monetary asset groupings suggested by earlier studies. We present a comprehensive comparison of narrow versus broad Divisia monetary aggregates within three classes of empirical models. We compute correlations between the cyclical components of Divisia monetary aggregates at different levels of aggregation and the cyclical component of industrial production. We test for Granger causality running from the Divisia aggregates to industrial production and various other measures of real economic activity. We also reestimate a structural vector autoregression based on earlier work by Leeper and Roush [(2003) Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 35, 1217–1256] and Belongia and Ireland [(2015) Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 33, 255–269; (2016) Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 48, 1223–1266], modifying that earlier work using monthly rather than quarterly data and extending it, both using broad as well as narrower Divisia monetary aggregates and by allowing for Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) behavior in the structural shocks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".