European Intervention Mechanisms for Growth: Budget and the European Investment Bank
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The EU's handling of the recent financial crisis gives much more weight to fiscal consolidation than to growth stimulus. Because the fiscal multipliers during crisis periods are significantly higher than previously estimated, the consolidation policy requires a second pillar for growth to avoid a vicious downward spiral. The first elements of this second pillar were adopted by the EU summit in June 2012, but the scope of the programme for growth and employment is not sufficient nor has it been implemented with the necessary speed and scope. This article calls for a systematic approach to increase the public intervention capacity to ignite sustainable growth. The main public financial instruments are the budget and the promotional bank at each level in Europe. The contribution of the promotional banks has grown since the eve of the great crisis. Volume and impact can be increased further. The main objectives are revolving funds, combined financial products bringing together loans and budget, focusing on viable projects and attracting private capital for projects where suitable. An optimisation of the budget for better leverage, better allocation efficiency and viable projects improves the impact significantly within given volumes. Even more enforcement seems possible if the budget grows to some extent to enlarge the anticrisis capacity.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it