MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995235594 · doi:10.1787/budget-v1-art10-fr

La procédure budgétaire au Canada

2001· article· fr· W1995235594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jón R. Blöndal

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de l OCDE sur la gestion budgétaire · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La dette publique du Canada exprimée en proportion du PIB, qui était inférieure à la moyenne des pays Membres de l’OCDE au début des années 80, a augmenté par la suite, culminant à 97.6 % en 1995. Seules l’Italie, à l’intérieur du G- 7, et la Grèce ainsi que la Belgique, dans la communauté de l’OCDE, avaient une dette plus élevée en proportion de leur PIB. Au plan de la gestion budgétaire, le point tournant est survenu en 1994. On a compris alors que la situation financière était en voie de se muer en crise, et que des mesures rigoureuses s’imposaient. Aujourd’hui, le Canada enregistre un excédent budgétaire et rembourse sa dette. Le présent rapport retrace le fil de ces événements.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de l OCDE sur la gestion budgétaireSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207