MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336313537

Global Economic Crisis and the Philippine Economy: A Quantitative Assessment

2011· article· en· W2336313537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erwin Corong, Angelo Taningco

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputable general equilibriumEconomicsPovertyFinancial crisisMicrosimulationIncome distributionCounterfactual thinkingCommodityEconomyEconomic growthInequalityMacroeconomicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes how the global crisis may have affected the Philippine economy. To the extent that the Philippines is more globally integrated through trade and labor flow channels than the financial sector, it is expected that impact of the global crisis will weigh heavily on the “real” side of the economy. To assess the likely impacts, a counterfactual “crisis” simulation analysis is undertaken by using a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model linked to a microsimulation module in order to trace effects: from the macro-economic to the microeconomic level; from output and factor supplies and demands to commodity and factor prices; and from household incomes to levels of poverty and income distribution. Simulation results suggest that all households experience a significant reduction in real income. Both inequality and poverty increase, with urban dwellers experiencing a higher increase in poverty relative to their rural counterparts as most export-oriented industries are located in the urban areas and returns to factors intensively used by these industries fall. 1 This research was carried out with financial and technical support from the Poverty and Economic Policy (PEP) research network, which is financed by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid) and the government of Canada through the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). 2 Respectively PhD candidate, Centre of Policy Studies (CoPS), Monash University; and Assistant Professor, Economics Department, De La Salle University-Manila. ii Table of

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207