MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399279333 · doi:10.3386/w32511

Life-cycle Forces make Monetary Policy Transmission Wealth-centric

2024· report· en· W4399279333 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Beaudry, Paolo Cavallino, Tim Willems

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2024
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetary policyEconomicsTransmission (telecommunications)Monetary economicsComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence suggests that monetary policy can affect long-term real interest rates, but it is not clear what drives this outcome.We argue this occurs because very persistent policy-induced interest rate changes may have only weak effects on activity.This can arise when consumption-savings decisions are not primarily driven by intertemporal substitution, but also by life-cycle forces associated with retirement.Within such an environment, we show that the impact of highly persistent monetary policy shocks on activity is determined by two forces: an asset valuation effect, and the response of the average marginal propensity to consume out of financial wealth.Our quantitative analysis indicates that these forces likely cancel each other out, allowing monetary policy to (unconsciously) drive trends in long-run real rates.Our findings also imply that very precise knowledge of r* might not be essential to the successful conduct of monetary policy.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designOther design · Theoretical or conceptual · Simulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicEconomic Theory and PolicyFrench-language works237,207