MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416753157

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

2025· preprint· en· W4416753157 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
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