MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2018307865 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v6n8p103

The Calculation of Chinese Short-Term International Capital Flow: Based on BOP

2014· article· en· W2018307865 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gang Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaKey Technologies Research and Development ProgramCentral University Basic Research Fund of ChinaFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsCapital flowsEconomicsBalance of paymentsVolatility (finance)ChinaCapital accountCapital (architecture)Term (time)Capital formationFinancial capitalInternational economicsMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsFinancial economicsMarket economyPolitical scienceGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short-term international capital flows are generally considered to have strong volatility, strong current scale changes, and easy flow direction reversal. Thus short-term international capital flows usually exert a negative influence on a country's real economy and the financial markets, and can produce financial crises. This article briefly examines the channels of short-term international capital flows through a comparative analysis of different methods for estimating the short-term capital flows based on the Chinese Balance of International Payments (BOP), and theoretically demonstrates the relationship between direct and indirect methods. China's short-term international capital flows are subsequently calculated based on the indirect method and the improved direct method. Finally, the paper tests the estimated results, and provides conclusions and recommendations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies→French-language works237,207→