MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341705279 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2016.05.01

Fiscal Policy and Economic Performance: A Review

2016· review· en· W2341705279 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
George Halkos, Epameinondas Paizanos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsGovernment spendingCapital expenditurePublic expenditureGovernment (linguistics)Fiscal policyFiscal sustainabilityPublic economicsEmpirical evidencePublic goodHuman capitalEconomic inequalityGovernment expenditurePublic spendingInequalitySustainabilityEconomic expansionPublic policyMacroeconomicsPublic financeEconomic growthFinanceMarket economyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The economic implications of government expenditure have been shown to be significant and broad. In particular, government spending has been shown to enhance long-run economic growth by increasing the level of human capital and Research and Development (R&D) expenditure, and by improving public infrastructure. On the other hand, there is evidence that a greater size of government spending may be less efficient and therefore not necessarily associated with a better provision of public goods and higher levels of economic growth. Moreover, it is likely that the size of government expenditure and its composition are associated with key aspects of the quality of growth, such as income inequality and environmental sustainability. This paper presents a review of the theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between fiscal policy and economic activity, both in terms of long-run economic growth and short-term output fluctuations. In general, empirical evidence on these relationships is not robust and remains inconclusive.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reviews on Global EconomicsSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207