Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research paper intended to identify causal relationship between elections and governments' fiscal policy. The first hypothesis of this paper was deduced from review of debates on relevance of Political Business Cycle (PBC) model which shed light on causal effect of elections on economy. From this review, I discovered such necessary conditions as the fixed timing of incumbent governments' majority status in legislature and manageable economic condition, and then formulated first hypothesis on basis of these three conditions. This paper derived second groups of hypotheses from relaxation of an assumption of PBC model with regard to extent of electoral influence on governments' policy incentive to manipulate fiscal policy. The relaxation of assumption drove me to focus on such new variables as and the proximity to election dates which constituted independent variables of second and third hypothesis, respectively. This paper constructed basic three statistical models to test three hypothesis and then conducted autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) time-series regression analysis. The ARIMA regression analysis of first statistical model revealed that Korean governments have pursued expansionary fiscal policy one quarter before elections, while Taiwan governments have done so three quarters before elections. The analysis of second and third model disclosed that Korean and Taiwan governments' fiscal manipulation varied with extent of electoral influence. However, way that they were affected by extent of electoral influence was different. While probability and extent of Korean governments' fiscal manipulation changed according to types of regime, Taiwan governments' pre-electoral fiscal policy were not subjected to variable of regime types but rather to that of proximity to election dates. The research paper run F tests to identify which one has more explanatory power between two groups of regression models. The F tests told us that second groups of regression models underpinning hypotheses derived from relaxation of assumption on electoral influence were better than first model which was based on assumption that effect of elections on governments' economic policy would be same in every election.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; 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".