MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7064891971

Culture and Monetary Policy Effectiveness

2023· dissertation· en· W7064891971 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHofstede's cultural dimensions theoryIndulgenceIndividualismMonetary policyUncertainty avoidanceSet (abstract data type)Power (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monetary policy, typically set by a nation’s central bank, mainly focuses on managing \nprice stability and encouraging economic growth. Arguably, this means that in shaping its \nmonetary policy, a central bank also influences the behavior of its country’s residents. In this \ncontext, we investigate if differing cultural and societal behaviors could make a central bank’s job \neasier or more challenging. Specifically, we use five of the six dimensions of national culture from \nGeert Hofstede and information on a country’s political, legal, and institutional framework to \nexamine whether a country’s cultural and/or institutional environment affects the efficiency of its \nmonetary policy, as reflected in both price stability and economic growth. Our findings suggest \nthat culture and societal behavior indeed play a role in how effective a country’s monetary policy \ncan be. For instance, we find that countries with high Power Distance and Individualism tend to \nbe less efficient, whereas societies with more Indulgence tend to be more efficient. Additionally, \nour research supports previous findings regarding the positive effect of inflation-targeting on \nmonetary policy efficiency.

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)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→