MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968106518

Taux d'actualisation pour l'évaluation des investissements publics au Québec

2007· article· fr· W1968106518 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCIRANO Project Reports · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberian dollarEconomicsProxy (statistics)Social discount rateValuation (finance)LiborWelfare economicsSocial costCost–benefit analysisInterest rateFinancial economicsFinanceMicroeconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of the time value of money (that is, a dollar today can be invested to yield more than a dollar tomorrow), a project's costs and benefits in different periods are not comparable. Therefore, a discount rate that will convert future sums into present values is used in cost-benefit analysis. This rate fundamentally influences the outcome: a rate too high will favour the present over the future and vice-versa. This paper addresses the issue of what the appropriate social discount rate for cost-benefit analysis of public projects should be in Quebec. In practice the Quebec government often uses the public sector's long-term borrowing costs as a proxy for the social discount rate. We find that this is inconsistent with both the scientific literature and international methodology on the subject. The social discount rate in Quebec: should be 8% in nominal terms, whereas the real rate should be 6%. Should be calculated without a risk premium. Should apply to all projects, including public private partnerships (PPPs). Should be revised every five years. La détermination du niveau du taux d'actualisation à utiliser est un élément critique du calcul économique qui doit être effectué lors de l'évaluation des projets publics envisagés. Ce taux permet de ramener sur une base comparable les coûts et les bénéfices qui sont échelonnés sur plusieurs périodes. En effet, un taux trop élevé aura pour effet de valoriser le présent au détriment du futur et vice-versa. Dans ce texte, nous suggérons un taux d'actualisation public pour le Québec qui est cohérent avec la littérature scientifique et les pratiques internationales sur ce sujet. Nous démontrons aussi que fixer le taux d'actualisation public au niveau du taux d'intérêt nominal moyen des emprunts gouvernementaux n'est pas l'option à retenir. Le taux d'actualisation : nominal du gouvernement du Québec doit être de 8 % et le taux réel du gouvernement du Québec doit être de 6 %. est un taux d'actualisation calculé hors prime de risque. est unique et s'applique de manière uniforme à tous les projets, incluant le partenariat public-privé. doit faire l'objet de révisions périodiques au moins tous les cinq ans.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.094 · 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