MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143086317 · doi:10.1111/1467-9396.00298

The Response of Other Lenders to the IMF

2001· article· en· W2143086317 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of International Economics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStylized factEconomicsMonetary economicsInternational economicsDeveloping countryMacroeconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until the late 1980s, it was a stylized fact that when a country adopted an IMF program, additional loans from non‐IMF sources would be triggered. Subsequent empirical research cast doubt on this catalytic effect; a country’s past involvement with the IMF appeared to be negatively correlated with new lending. This paper examines directly the response of lenders to the presence of IMF conditional agreements in developing countries in the 1973–89 period. While total lending does appear to increase in response to the presence of some IMF agreements, the effect varies over time, and across recipients and lenders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.304 · 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