MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416753157

Deliberation and Policy Outcomes: Evidence from the Textual Analysis of FOMC Transcripts *

2025· preprint· en· W4416753157 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandro Riboni, Francisco J. Ruge‐Murcia, Linh Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliberationConstruct (python library)Tone (literature)DissentPredictive powerNatural (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural language processing is used to extract information from FOMC transcripts and construct quantitative text-based measures of voiced policy stance, emotions, and collaboration. These measures are inputs in an econometric model of deliberation where members interact with one another across rounds of a meeting and over time across meetings. Evidence shows that members learn from one another during within-meeting deliberation and exert influence across meetings. Although emotional tone has limited effects on policy stances and decisions, it has strong predictive power for dissent behavior

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.238
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.238
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 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 venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicComputational and Text Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207