MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2468177669 · doi:10.1057/9780230590441_12

SARS Versus the Asian Financial Crisis

2007· book-chapter· en· W2468177669 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oliver H. M. Yau, Wing-Fai Leung, Fanny Sau-Lan Cheung, Cheris W. C. Chow

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaFinancial crisisRecessionOutbreakEconomic recoveryStock marketTourismPessimismCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Stock (firearms)Development economicsBusinessEconomicsEconomyGeographyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The experience in Asia during the past few years has provided new perspectives on the effects of crises. Following the collapse of the Thailand stock market on 2 July 1997, most Asian economies have faced economic downturn. The slow recovery resulted in many companies having hard times, and struggling to even survive. Another crisis occurred in Asia following the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in southern China during late 2002 and early 2003. The SARS crisis spread to many other Asian economies and even Canada, where the previously unknown disease killed a number of people. During the outbreak of SARS, the economic perspective was very pessimistic and many industries, especially tourism and retail, were hurt seriously. However, SARS was under control in May 2003, and since then the recovery of the economies has been very strong, even beyond the expectations of most economists and marketers. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks→Same topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency→French-language works237,207→