MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770583048 · doi:10.1109/iccss.2017.8091488

A short-term projection for Japanese central government debt via WASD neuronet

2017· article· en· W2770583048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yunong Zhang, Zhongxian Xue, Li Wan, Yingbiao Ling, Chengxu Ye

Bibliographic record

Venue2017 4th International Conference on Information, Cybernetics and Computational Social Systems (ICCSS) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policies and Political Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryDebtGovernment debtProjection (relational algebra)Government (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Term (time)Debt ratioEconomicsFinanceGeographyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Japan has the highest debt-to-GDP ratio among advanced countries. Japanese central government debt has increased rapidly in the past 20 years. According to the data provided by Ministry of Finance, Japan, the total central government debt (TCGD) of Japan reached 1, 066,423.4 billion (December 31, 2016). This number refreshes the history record of Japanese central government debt. It is important to conduct a projection for the TCGD so that the government can make better fiscal policies and predict the risk in the future. In this paper, we conduct a ten-quarter projection for the TCGD of Japan via a three-layer feed-forward neuronet. The neuronet is trained successfully with the central government debt data from June 30, 1996 to December 31, 2016, provided by Ministry of Finance, Japan, in quarterly manner. Numerical experiments show four different trends of TCGD: slightly increasing trend, sharply increasing trend, decreasing-increasing trend and decreasing trend. The most possibility is that the TCGD increases slightly in short term. Furthermore, we conduct a relatively longer-term (i.e., twenty-four quarters) projection with the most possibility.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2017 4th International Conference on Information, Cybernetics and Computational Social Systems (ICCSS)Same topicFiscal Policies and Political EconomyFrench-language works237,207