What do central bankers talk about when they talk about inflation? The rise and fall of inflation narratives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2021 debate over the causes of inflation was dominated by contrasting narratives around the drivers of, and solutions to, rising prices. But how these ideas did or did not penetrate central banks, the politically independent institutions responsible for keeping prices stable, remains unclear. In this paper we investigate how the Bank of England, European Central Bank, and Federal Reserve discussed and deployed specific inflation narratives over time in their attempts to diagnose and treat the inflation of the period. We focus on four narratives that identify the main drivers of inflation in (1) excessive public spending, (2) higher wages in the labour market than warranted by productivity, (3) supply side disruptions to critical markets such as energy, and (4) corporate profit margin expansion. We use a large language model to tag central banks’ speeches with relevant narratives at sentence level, which allows us to quantify how much each central bank discussed each narrative. The results shed new light on how these three central banks interfaced with the recent debate around inflation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it