Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two studies presented in the first session of the conference take quite different approaches to the question of price indexes. On the one hand, Coulombe’s study develops the idea that the general level of prices is indeed a relevant intertemporal price under a monetary regime where the general price level is stationary. The author illustrates this viewpoint by analysing the behaviour of real interest rate expectations during the gold-standard era in Great Britain. In doing this, Coulombe suggests a new solution to Gibson’s paradox. On the other hand, Crawford, Fillion, and Laflèche, using the latest econometric techniques, set out to determine whether inflation, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), is a satisfactory way of identifying the underlying trend of inflation in Canada. Their study also attempts to quantify the degree of bias in the CPI as a measure of the cost of living. In this discussion I do not compare and contrast the results of these two studies. The two approaches are very different, making any comparison risky. The primary objective of Coulombe’s study is to reassess to what extent the general price level can convey useful information to economic agents in their intertemporal decisions, beyond what is already revealed by the interest rate. According to conventional interpretation, the real interest rate is the only intertemporal price that is relevant for allocating consumption over time. Once this is known, the general price level does not offer any additional information that would help individuals make better choices. Coulombe’s study seeks to show that this result is in fact valid only in an economy where the general price level is integrated of order one. Let me review his argument briefly: 77 78 Discussion: Carmichael An individual who maximizes his utility will allocate his consumption over periods t and t + 1 to equalize the marginal rate of intertemporal substitution (MRIS) at the anticipated real interest rate: MRISt ≡ logU ′ ( •)– logU ′ ( • ) ≅ r
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.382 | 0.159 |
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".