Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ongoing review of the IMF, initiated in 2005 by Managing Director De Rato, presents an excellent opportunity to re-examine the role, functions and governance of the Fund. In particular, the objective, scope and conduct of IMF surveillance have been identified as a key area for renewal. In this paper, we offer a new vision for IMF surveillance. There are two main parts to our proposal. First, we develop "Guidelines for Economic Policy Frameworks" that outline the objective and scope of surveillance. They delineate the benchmarks against which members economic policy frameworks can be assessed. The Guidelines also serve to clarify the principles under which surveillance is conducted, and reaffirm members' commitments to the surveillance process under their Article IV obligations. The second element of our proposal is a "Surveillance Remit". The Remit defines the aim of surveillance and the obligations of the Fund to pursue this goal. As such the Remit creates a mechanism to hold the Fund accountable. An important implication of the Remit is that it requires the Fund to become more independent in its day-to-day operations. In addition, we propose procedures for communicating surveillance and for assessing the Fund's conduct of surveillance. Taken together, the various elements reinforce each other, providing a clear role for the IMF, as well as its member countries, in the surveillance process. This principles-based approach can bolster the credibility and legitimacy of surveillance, and ultimately its effectiveness, to the benefit of all members.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".