MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099850428

The Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism and Policy Rules

2002· article· en· W7099850428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetary policyInflation (cosmology)Inflation targetingContext (archaeology)Section (typography)Mechanism (biology)Monetary transmission mechanismExchange rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inflation targeting regime in place in Canada requires a clear understanding of the monetary policy transmission mechanism and a way to exploit knowledge of that mechanism in making policy decisions� This paper describes the Bank of Canada’s current understanding of the monetary policy transmission mechanism as well as our research, in the context of a model based on that understanding, to identify policy rules to help guide the formulation of monetary policy� Section 1 discusses the Bank’s view of the monetary policy transmission mechanism in Canada � It begins with the major linkages and then focuses in turn on transmission through financial variables, the impact of financial variables on aggregate demand, and the impact on inflation from the output gap, expectations, and the exchange rate� Because of the importance of inflation projections in the framework used at the Bank of Canada, section 2 reviews the range of approaches that have been investigated for generating such projections � These include the construction of small models of the Canadian economy, single-equation models of quarterly inflation, and a fully specified model, the Quarterly Projection Model (QPM) � Section 3 outlines recent work at the Bank of Canada on policy rules � This section covers the QPM policy rule, simulation analyses comparing forward-looking The authors have benefited from the technical assistance of Hope Pioro and from comments by their colleagues (especially Bob Amano, Tiff Macklem, and Dinah Maclean), by Pablo García, and by participants at the Third International Conference of the Central Bank of Chile � The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors � No responsibility for them should be attributed to the Bank of Canada�

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207