A Survey of Alternative Measures of Macroeconomic Uncertainty: Which Measures Forecast Real Variables and Explain Fluctuations in Asset Volatilities Better?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past 20 years, measures of economic uncertainty have been developed that are purely market price based; structural model based, using data on real fundamentals and asset prices; text based; or survey based. We compare the performance of these uncertainty measures in forecasting three real variables with irreversibilities—investment, hiring, and credit creation—as well as in explaining fluctuations in stock market and Treasury bond market volatility. In general, we find that structural model–based measures do better than measures constructed using other approaches, with a model of stock market volatility by David and Veronesi performing the best on several (but not all) dimensions. Their learning-based model's volatility places time-varying weights on inflation, earnings, and consumption news, as agents in the economy assess the impact that inflation has on the stability of real economic growth.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it