Replication Report: Did Unconventional Interventions Unfreeze the Credit Market?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tong and Wei (2020) study the impact of unconventional monetary interventions on credit markets during the 2008 global financial crisis. They find that stock prices increase on intervention days, particularly for firms operating in sectors perceived to be more reliant on external funding. Moreover, they report a positive effect of unconventional interventions on firms' subsequent investment, employment, and R&D expenditure, and find that bank recapitalizations are more effective than other interventions. We replicated the reported findings using the data and programs provided by the authors. However, the results did not hold when using the Rajan-Zingales (1998) metric of firms' external financing needs for capital expenditure-one of the two liquidity measures proposed by Tong and Wei (2020). Furthermore, the results do not hold for U.S. and European firms, and they appear driven by a small subset of Canadian firms operating in the extraction of gold and silver ore. These findings raise questions on the results and policy implications proposed in the original paper.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.023 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".