Oceans Apart? China and Other Systemically Important Economies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
China has been considered a systemically important economy for at least a decade. As policymakers worldwide grapple with sluggish growth there is relatively little evidence about whether the G4, which consists of the US, the Eurozone, Japan, and includes China, as a block contributes to global economic performance in a manner that is not possible when China is left out or treated exogenously. We estimate a series of panel factor and standard VARs because these are well suited to exploit cross-country links. We estimate the relative impact of domestic and global factors on these four economies. First, it is essential to treat China in a model of the G4, on a level playing field with the US, the Eurozone, and Japan to better understand how shocks among these economies interact with each other. Second, we find that domestic and global shocks can reinforce each other. Indeed, global monetary shocks explain up to 60% of variation in commodity demand and real economic conditions. We also report that there is a trade-off between domestic monetary and financial conditions. We recommend that policymakers to reexamine the potential benefits from greater policy cooperation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".