MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618295115 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2017.06.16

The “Sudden” Transition to the Free Floating Exchange Rate Regime in Russia in 2014

2017· article· en· W2618295115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Evgenii V. Gilenko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEconomic and Technological Developments in Russia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExchange rateCurrencyExchange-rate regimeRussian economyMonetary economicsEconomicsForcing (mathematics)Central bankInternational economicsBank reservesCurrency crisisFinancial systemBusinessMonetary policyReserve requirementEconomic system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The events of the fall of 2014 in the Russian currency market forced Bank of Russia to change the exchange \nrate regime in the national economy. In this study we show that in 2014 the regulator was trying to protect ruble (the Russian national currency) against a massive speculative attack, actively spending its international reserves, but the interventions proved quite ineffective. Moreover, the peculiarity of the structure of these reserves dictated a very limited range of maneuver for the central bank, forcing it to switch to the free floating exchange rate regime in the first half of November, 2014 – an important event, which, actually, could have been predicted by the lay experts on the basis of publically available information and application of simple econometric models. Noteworthy to say that, although not expectedly to the lay population, this switch of the exchange rate regime was done by Bank of Russia quite timely.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reviews on Global EconomicsSame topicEconomic and Technological Developments in RussiaFrench-language works237,207