MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612475533 · doi:10.1111/pbaf.12163

Do Balanced Budget Laws Matter in Recessions?

2017· article· en· W2612475533 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Haizhen Mou, Michael Atkinson, Stephen Tapp

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Budgeting &amp Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policies and Political Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecessionDebtEconomicsJurisdictionPoliticsMonetary economicsLawMacroeconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the mid‐1990s, most Canadian provinces have enacted balanced budget laws (BBLs). Critics argue that these laws are empty political gestures that are ignored during economic slowdowns. We consider BBLs in the Canadian provinces from 1981 to 2013 and find that provinces with stronger rules had better deficit and debt records overall. Recessions make it more difficult to achieve positive outcomes, but we find no obvious difference between the effects of BBLs during normal economic conditions and “bad times.” We conclude with suggestions for how the design of BBLs could take better account of jurisdiction‐specific business cycles.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.221 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Budgeting &amp FinanceSame topicFiscal Policies and Political EconomyFrench-language works237,207