MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413478129 · doi:10.1080/00036846.2025.2536751

Interpreting the United States Consumer Price Index using index mining techniques and its component price indices: 2012 to 2023

2025· article· en· W4413478129 on OpenAlexaff
Yi‐Sheng Chao, Chao-Jung Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)EconomicsPrice indexComponent (thermodynamics)Consumer price index (South Africa)EconometricsProducer price indexWholesale price indexFinancial economicsPrice levelMacroeconomicsComputer scienceMid priceThermodynamicsMonetary policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) aims to measure inflation. The CPI, published monthly by the US and measured by the price index of ‘All items’, is the sum of the products of component price indices and their relative weights. We analysed the CPI and its component price indices between 2012 and 2023. Based on the correlations between the CPI and its 358 component price indices, the CPI well represented the trends of most component price indices throughout the period. The time series regression coefficients of component indices did not necessarily match the relative weights. If measuring volatility with rolling standard deviations of raw values with 19 or more months time windows, the CPI was less volatile than the core CPI. The CPI is a good measure of relative price changes in most of the goods or services. However, some goods and services have prices fluctuating in patterns very different from that of the CPI. Policy implications include initiatives that focus on the management of macroeconomic risks, early policy responses using the leading indicators of inflation, policies to manage inflation propagation over time or across price indices, and strategies to refine inflation-linked payments.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueApplied EconomicsSame topicWine Industry and TourismFrench-language works237,207