MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415978748 · doi:10.1142/s0219024925500153

MACROECONOMIC STRESS TESTING: A HOUSEHOLD SURVEY DATA SIMULATION

2025· article· en· W4415978748 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick X. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress testStress testing (software)Survey data collectionTest (biology)Distribution (mathematics)Financial marketFinancial riskRisk managementFinancial sector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Macroeconomic stress testing is a risk management technique employed by financial market regulators to evaluate how an institution’s financial condition could be affected by specified changes in risk factors under severe yet plausible economic scenarios. It plays an essential role in financial market risk management and supervision. This paper extends the technique to the household sector by developing a micro-founded simulation framework constrained by macro-consistency to assess household financial security. I apply this framework to Canadian households using the 2023 Macroeconomic Stress Testing (MST) scenario developed by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI). The resulting stress test outcomes are consistent with statements regarding Canadian households in the Bank of Canada’s 2023 Financial System Review. Crucially, I find that accounting for income distribution significantly amplifies stress test results, revealing a pronounced middle-class squeeze effect.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied FinanceSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207