MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106321839 · doi:10.5089/9798229031943.001

The Importance of Diagnostic Expectations in Open Economies

2025· article· en· W7106321839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIMF Working Paper · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Rational expectationsRelevance (law)Monetary policyEmpirical evidenceBenchmark (surveying)Transmission channelEmpirical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop and estimate a parsimonious New-Keynesian small open-economy model that incorporates Diagnostic Expectations (DE)—a behavioral alternative to Rational Expectations (RE). Under DE, agents systematically overreact to new information, generating additional endogenous volatility. Our empirical analysis provides robust support for the DE framework: it fits Canadian data significantly better than the nested RE benchmark and improves forecasts of key macroeconomic variables, including real GDP growth, even during crises such as the Global Financial Crisis. These gains arise because DE reshapes the transmission of shocks, amplifying their effects and strengthening the exchange-rate channel of monetary policy. As a result, the relative importance of structural shocks shifts—with greater roles for supply shocks—and policymakers face a meaningfully worse inflation–output volatility trade-off. Taken together, our results highlight the relevance of behavioral expectations for open-economy dynamics and policy design.

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)0.019
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIMF Working PaperSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207