MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384698201 · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15577

Three Essays in Macroeconomics with a Focus on Forecasting GDP Growth with Machine Learning, Measuring Uncertainty with NLP, and Revisiting a Small Open Economy RBC Model

2023· dissertation· en· W4384698201 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shafiullah Qureshi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningComputer scienceIndex (typography)Support vector machineNowcastingGradient boostingSentiment analysisReal gross domestic productAlgorithmRandom forestEconometricsEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chapter 1, entitled "Forecasting Canadian GDP Growth with Machine Learning," shows that it is possible to forecast Canadian monthly real GDP growth accurately ahead of the official release of GDP figures by Statistics Canada, by using, as predictors, Google trends (GT) data together with some Official data (such as employment) which are available before the official release of GDP data.This chapter uses some of the most recent supervised machine learning (ML) algorithms in order to forecast real GDP growth.The success of a supervised ML algorithm depends on its capability to capture nonlinearities in the relationship between the response variable and predictive variables as well as in the interactions between two predictive variables.Accordingly, in forecasting real GDP growth, we use nonlinear tree-based ensemble algorithms that have not been fully explored for economic forecasting, namely, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), CatBoost, Random Forest (RF) and Microsoft's Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM).We also use the nonlinear Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm, one of the best-known supervised ML algorithms for classification and regression analysis, which makes use of the nonlinear radial basis function as the kernel function.We use three data sets, namely, Official data, GT data and Official+GT data (a combination of the preceding two data sets).Feature selection is performed by either PDC-SIS, a variable selection procedure recently developed by Yousuf and Feng (2022) or XGBoost's "variable importance" measure (VI-XGBoost).The pre-selected features are then used together with the ML Bibliography

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207