MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411287501 · doi:10.1017/s1365100525000331

Shocking the economy from 1967 up to 2023: reinforcing the relevance of Divisia money in US monetary policy

2025· article· en· W4411287501 on OpenAlexaff
Christophe Barrette, Alain Paquet

Bibliographic record

VenueMacroeconomic Dynamics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivisia indexEconomicsRelevance (law)Divisia monetary aggregates indexMonetary policyMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsKeynesian economicsCentral bankQuantitative easingEnergy (signal processing)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using US quarterly data (1967–2023), including inflation’s post-pandemic surge and decline alongside monetary policies characterized by quantitative easing before refocusing on the 2% target, we utilize traditional and novel econometric tools to assess the stability of key macroeconomic variables’ responses to monetary shocks. Our findings confirm the relevance of a broad Divisia aggregate in understanding monetary policy transmission and highlight its empirical importance in explaining output and price dynamics across decades. Time-varying impulse response functions (IRFs) reveal consistent and puzzle-free price responses to Divisia-based monetary shocks throughout the sample, aligning with theory. Time-varying IRFs indicate that pandemic-related outliers in GDP (2020Q2) do not disrupt results. In contrast, Fed Funds rate or shadow policy interest rate shocks often yield puzzling outcomes across earlier and extended periods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacroeconomic DynamicsSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207