Bibliographic record
Abstract
In G-7 meetings, since the Mexican crisis that resulted in the Rey Report1 to the meeting in Halifax in 2002,2 there has been emphasis on the recovery of private foreign credit for a country to receive official financing. Otherwise, official resources, of the IMF, World Bank, etc., would simply fall into a barrel without a bottom, providing only liquidity for capital flight of local and international investors trying to avoid exchange and local financial crises. Whatever the final verdict of academic and technical debate, the international financial community believes strongly in the possibility of moral hazard. This hazard consists of the breakdown of discipline in the calculation of risk by countries and companies in expectation that IFIs will rescue countries and their governments will prevent failure of certain entities. Moral hazard, whatever its merit or dimension, is a necessary assumption because it is part of the official doctrine. However, the G-7 may contribute to moral hazard by influencing the rescue of countries because of geopolitical interest.KeywordsForeign Direct InvestmentMoral HazardHedge FundNorth American Free Trade AgreementCurrent Account DeficitThese 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".