MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064814443 · doi:10.4000/osb.1124

Extents and Limits of Monetary Reform under Gordon Brown

2011· article· fr· W2064814443 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathalie Champroux

Bibliographic record

VenueObservatoire de la société britannique · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisinflationMonetary policyEconomicsInflation (cosmology)Interest rateKeynesian economicsFinancial crisisExpansionismMonetary economicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Price of stabilityMacroeconomicsPolitical sciencePoliticsHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gordon Brown’s first and main policy when nominated Chancellor in 1997 was to reform the monetary framework. This consisted of three major changes dedicated to maintaining price stability. From 1997 to 2007, the new framework seemed efficient, with Britain keeping moderate but constant growth and limited inflation. But the financial and economic crisis which started in 2008 changed the rules. Taking account of the two-year time lag, the expansionist interest rate policy applied since December 2007 first managed to prevent disinflation, but then led to accelerating increase in prices. Moreover, between the second quarter of 2008 and the third quarter of 2009, Britain’s growth rate remained negative, even despite the huge quantitative easing measures which took over from conventional interest rate policy. This paper will first analyse the monetary framework reform. It will then question its value, knowing that it obviously failed to prevent the crisis and to rapidly cure the recessionary situation.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObservatoire de la société britanniqueSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207