MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2269484776

Federalism and Capital Markets in Canada and the U.S.: Financing Infrastructure in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina

2005· article· en· W2269484776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. Bartley Hildreth

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismHurricane katrinaCapital (architecture)State (computer science)Capital marketBusinessFinanceDebtDual federalismFinancial crisisPrivate capitalEconomicsNatural disasterEconomic policyPolitical sciencePoliticsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hurricane Katrina was much more than a natural disaster, it also left New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of the United States financially devastated. The re-building effort will take place on the ground, coordinated largely by the state and federal governments, and financed in capital markets. Markets can supplement federalism. A key advantage of debt markets is that these competitive, risk-bearing institutions are less prone to accept questionable projects and financial plans than are politicians up the federalism hierarchy. This paper examines the financial relationship and programs of the federal in the US and Canada with the sub-national governments at the state/provincial and municipal levels, and concludes each country could learn from the other. Citizens in both countries were left in awe of the sudden disintegration of New Orleans and its infrastructure. As with infrastructure questions elsewhere, the solution is likely to be found in a combination of federalism and capital markets.

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)0.004
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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→