MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098354465

MPRA Paper No. 22772, posted 13. May 2010 / 18:52Seasonal and Periodic Long Memory Models in the Inflation Rates

2006· article· en· W7098354465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicService and Product Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive fractionally integrated moving averageOutlierInflation (cosmology)Long memoryMaximum likelihoodParametric statisticsFeature (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the application of long memory processes to describe inflation with seasonal behaviour. We use three different long memory models taking into account the seasonal pattern in the data. Namely, the ARFIMA model with deterministic seasonality, the ARFISMA model, and the periodic ARFIMA (PARFIMA) model. These models are used to describe the inflation rates of four different countries, USA, Canada, Tunisia, and South Africa. The analysis is carried out using the Sowell’s (1992) maximum likelihood techniques for estimating ARFIMA model and using the approximate maximum likelihood method for the estimation of the PARFIMA process. We implement a new procedure to obtain the maximum likelihood estimates of the ARFISMA model, in which dummies variables on additive outliers are included. The advantage of this parametric estimation method is that all parameters are estimated simultaneously in the time domain. For all countries, we find that estimates of differencing parameters are significantly different from zero. This is evidence in favour of long memory and suggests that persistence is a common feature for inflation series. Note that neglecting the existence of additive outliers may possibly biased estimates of the seasonal and periodic long memory models.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicService and Product InnovationFrench-language works237,207