MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7071627606

Three Essays in Macroeconomics

2025· dissertation· en· W7071627606 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal factor productivityConsumption (sociology)BoomProductivityPer capitaFossil fuelWelfareCapital (architecture)Per capita incomeRelative price
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis consists of three papers in macroeconomics that investigate the following questions: (1) How do changes in global demand for fossil fuels affect welfare across households in small resource-rich economies? (2) How did the expansion of the oil sector in Canada affect measured aggregate productivity? (3) How sensitive are cross-country comparisons to measurement errors introduced by nominal-to-real conversions? Chapter 1 develops a quantitative model of a fossil fuel exporting economy to show that the oil price boom between 1997 and 2020 increased welfare among young, low-income households between 11\% and 16\%. I then simulate the transition to a Net Zero world between 2020 and 2050 and show that while the fall in global demand for fossil fuels reduces lifetime consumption by 0.56\% (between 0.49\% and 0.77\% for the youngest low-income households), the growth of the clean energy sector can dampen these losses by 15\% to 54\% depending on the speed of the expansion. Chapter 2, co-authored with Pau Pujolas, studies the observed stagnation of Canadian Total Factor Productivity (TFP) between 2000 and 2018. We find that the entirety of the slowdown can be accounted for by the expansion of the oil sector, due to the massive capital investments that occurred. Comparing TFP growth in the rest of the economy to the United States, we find that Canadian TFP grew at comparable rates over the same period. Chapter 3, also co-authored with Pau Pujolas, explores how conclusions drawn from comparing GDP per capita of developed economies relative to the United States differ significantly depending on if current- or constant-Purchasing power parity (PPP) metrics are used. Using data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), we first document the differences in the evolution of GDP per capita relative to the US in current-PPPs and constant-PPPs before demonstrating in a numerical example how the choices made in constructing real metrics of GDP to make cross-country comparison can lead to contradictory interpretations.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.007

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207