MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399024944 · doi:10.1515/snde-2023-0106

Divisia Monetary Aggregates for India

2024· article· en· W4399024944 on OpenAlex
Anirban Sengupta, Apostolos Serletis, Libo Xu

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivisia indexDivisia monetary aggregates indexEconomicsEconometricsKeynesian economicsMonetary economicsMonetary policyMathematicsStatisticsCentral bankQuantitative easing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we are motivated by the fast growing literature that investigates the performance of Divisia monetary aggregates. We construct Divisia monetary aggregates for India using monthly data form January 2001 to March 2020 and present a comprehensive comparison across the Indian Divisia monetary aggregates at four levels of monetary aggregation, M1, M2, M3, and M4. We do so in the context of three classes of empirical models. In particular, we compute correlations between the cyclical components of the Divisia monetary aggregates and the cyclical component of the industrial production index. We test for Granger causality running from the Divisia monetary aggregates to industrial production. We also test for time-varying Granger causality. We find that the levels of the Divisia monetary aggregates Granger cause economic activity in India during normal times, but the causal link broke during and in the aftermath of the extremely unusual circumstances of the Covid-19 crisis.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.146 · 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