Le rendement des obligations provinciales et l’incertitude politique : une analyse de séries chronologiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this text, we apply time series techniques (Box-Tiao) to isolate the influence of the Parti québécois' electoral win of November 1976 on the financial and economic costs of the Québec government borrowings. For long term bonds issue between November 1976 and February 1979, we estimated at 32.49 millions of $ at 1979 present value or 1.22% of the total amount borrowed, the supplementary financial cost. In terms of additional payments to non-Québécois holding Québec government bonds, this associated economic cost has been evaluated at 11.21 millions of $ at 1979 present value, representing .42% of total borrowings. These costs may vary with respect to inflation and exchange rates and it must be emphasized that they are based on the evolution of yield differentials between Québec and Ontario government bonds and not on their direct yields to maturity. In that respect, these supplementary costs are only relative to the situation of Ontario and it is not impossible that the Parti québécois' électoral win have displaced the lenders portfolios of Canadian provincial bonds to the benefit of the government of Ontario. Finally, approximately two years and half following the pequist victory, the financial markets have retrieved to their former structure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".