MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402436648 · doi:10.56734/ijbms.v5n9a4

Threshold Cointegration and Granger Causality Between CPI And PPI In Selected Countries

2024· article· en· W4402436648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kai Yin Woo, Lin- Xuan Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business & Management Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCointegrationGranger causalityEconomicsCausality (physics)EconometricsMonetary economicsKeynesian economicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper mainly investigates the threshold cointegration and Granger-causality relationships between the CPI and PPI series in the selected countries for policymakers to effectively control inflation. We first applied the unit root test to ensure the integration order of all the series, and then both the linear Engle-Granger (E-G) and the nonlinear Enders-Siklos (E-S) cointegration tests for comparative analysis. Lastly, Granger causality tests are adopted in the momentum threshold vector error correction model (M-TVECM), which is used to estimate the different speeds of adjustment and explore the causal relationship between CPI and PPI in the selected countries. While the E-G test cannot detect cointegration in almost all countries, the E-S test with higher power when there is asymmetric adjustment, supports the cointegration relationship in Canada, Denmark, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Spain, and Uruguay. The evidence also supports the existence of asymmetric threshold adjustment in all cointegrated systems. In addition, the empirical results indicate that Granger causality in the M-TVECM can be classified into two categories. One kind is about CPI leading to PPI, including Spain only while another kind is about bidirectional causality between CPI and PPI for other countries in the M-TVECM.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business & Management StudiesSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207