MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416680642 · doi:10.47065/jbe.v6i2.7301

Efektivitas Kebijakan Moneter Dalam Mengendalikan Inflasi di Indonesia dengan Pendekatan Error Correction Model (ECM)

2025· article· W4416680642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liasulistia Ningsih, Indra Ismayudi Tanjung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Economics Research (JBE) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflation (cosmology)Monetary policyError correction modelCirculation (fluid dynamics)Inflation targetingTerm (time)Quarter (Canadian coin)Interest rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflation is one of the main problems facing Indonesia, and the effectiveness of policies in controlling inflation is still questionable because the findings of research analysis are still varied. Bank Indonesia as the central bank has made efforts to control inflation with various monetary policy instruments. Therefore, this study focuses on the effectiveness of monetary policy in controlling inflation in Indonesia. The data used in this study uses quarterly data covering the first quarter of 2010 to the fourth quarter of 2024. The research model used in this study uses the Error Correction Model (ECM) time series estimation. The results of the analysis found that interest rates and the amount of money in circulation as monetary policy instruments have not been effective enough in controlling inflation in both the short and long term. This is indicated by the results of the estimation of the significant but positive effect of interest rates on inflation in both the short and long term. While the amount of money in circulation has a significant negative effect in the long term and does not have a significant effect in the short term.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business and Economics Research (JBE)Same topicEconomic Growth and Fiscal PoliciesFrench-language works237,207