A Comparison of Twelve Macroeconomic Models of the Canadian Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this report, the authors examine and compare twelve private and public sector models of the Canadian economy with respect to their paradigm, structure, and dynamic properties. These open-economy models can be grouped into two economic paradigms. The first is the "conventional" paradigm (or Phillips curve paradigm) and the second is the "money matters" paradigm. Under the conventional paradigm, inflation is determined by price adjustments in response to inflation expectations and by factor disequilibrium in labour or product markets. Under the money matters paradigm, inflation is determined mainly by monetary disequilibrium. Although most models are based on the conventional paradigm, there are nevertheless important differences within that paradigm. In particular, there are differences in the inflation process (linear/non-linear Phillips curve), the expectation processes (backward-looking and/or model-consistent expectations), the channels through which monetary policy affects the economy (short-term interest rates or the yield curve), and the sensitivity of output and inflation to changes in interest rates and the exchange rate. The authors also examine the dynamic properties of the various models when those models use the simple monetary reaction function proposed by Taylor (1993). The eight deterministic shocks considered in this report reveal significant differences in the dynamic properties of the participating models. A comparison of the models' impulse-response functions with those of a vector autoregression suggests that some models do better than others in reflecting the typical response of the Canadian economy to certain 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".