Relativní verze teorie parity kupní síly: problémy empirické verifikace [Relative version of the theory of purchasing power parity: problems of empirical verification]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article discusses problems of the empirical verification of the relative version of the theory of purchasing power parity based on aggregated price indexes (especially using the consumer price index). The goal of the articles is to compare empirical results obtained from cross-country time series analysis using cointegration analysis, Error Correction Model, as well as VAR analysis. The authors tested 21 currency pairs of the U.S.A., Canada, Japan, Switzerland, the Great Britain, Norway, and Sweden in the period between 1975 and 2007. All tested time series were cointegrated of the first order with the exception of the consumer price index of Switzerland, which was cointegrated of the second order. The results of cointegration analysis are not very robust. This is explained by the authors as follows: existence of high transaction costs in an arbitrage, existence of complementary goods and oligopoly structure of exports, and expected back reaction between exchange rate and inflation.
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 | 0.039 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".