MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210034303

G-multipliers in Canada: How large? And Why?

2021· article· en· W3210034303 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fabrice Dabiré, Hashmat Khan, Patrick Richard, Jean‐François Rouillard

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de recherche · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsShock (circulatory)Government spendingProduction (economics)Government (linguistics)Autoregressive modelExchange rateCapital (architecture)Public goodPublic spendingMonetary economicsEconometricsMacroeconomicsMicroeconomicsMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate the effects of government spending on GDP in Canada using the sign restrictions approach with quarterly data that spans from 1961 to 2019. The variables that enter our vector autoregressive model are carefully chosen to reflect the distinct characteristics of the economy, in particular, its linkages with US business cycles. We find large multipliers that are above 2 on impact and in the long-run. They are not specific to the state of the economy. Moreover, neither net exports and real exchange rates nor terms-of-trade respond significantly to the government spending shock. Hence, we explore two channels that involve specific closed-economy characteristics of Canada to explain the size of the multipliers. First, the production of public goods in Canada features a much larger labour share than the production of private goods. Second, we argue that the level of public capital relative to its GDP is suboptimal. Based on a general equilibrium model, we show and explain how these two characteristics matter for the multipliers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de rechercheSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207