La crisis económica que arrancó en 2007 en Canadá1: restricciones subnacionales al déficit y respuesta política
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Se pretende examinar la manera en que la politica publica se ha adaptado a la crisis economica que inicio en 2007 en Canada, haciendo especial hincapie en las normas de deficit y en el uso de este en un estado federal como el canadiense. En definitiva se comprueba que los gobiernos provinciales y el federal de Canada se encuentran en una posicion economica razonablemente solida en ausencia de normas supranacionales (del tipo de Maastricht) en el NAFTA o de limites constitucionales sobre la deuda y el deficit y en presencia de restricciones legales sobre la deuda y el deficit a escala provincial. Lo que parece importar es un consenso politico sobre el hecho de que no se debe gastar razonablemente mas de lo que se ingresa. Este consenso politico surgio tras la alarma financiera de mediados de los noventa que llevo al gobierno federal tanto a recortar el gasto como a aumentar los impuestos en su presupuesto de 1995. The aim of this article is to examine the way in which public policy has been adapted to the economic crisis which began in Canada in 2007, placing special emphasis on the deficit rules and on the use of the deficit in a federal state like Canada. In short, the provincial and federal governments of Canada are found to be in a reasonably solid economic position in the absence of supranational rules (of the Maastricht type) in the NAFTA or constitutional restrictions on debt or deficit, and in the presence of legal restrictions on debt and deficit at provincial level. What seems to matter is a political consensus on the fact that one should not spend more than one’s income. This political consensus came about after the financial scare of the mid-nineties, which forced the federal government to cut expenditure and raise taxes in its 1995 budget.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".