Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fiscal policy witnessed a double U-turn, or policy pirouette, because of the global financial crisis. Prior to the 2008 crisis, all Western governments were defending the need to balance public-sector accounts and target budgetary surpluses. The Canadian government, together with the German government, had perhaps been the most vocal and successful in achieving this fiscal objective, while most governments were emulating one another (at least in their official discourse) and metaphorically were tripping over each other to attain budgetary surpluses. However, after November 2008, all the G20 governments began to run significant discretionary budgetary deficits arising from temporary consumption tax cuts and the extension of unemployment insurance benefits, as well as the decision to engage in large public investments According to estimates, these stimulus plans in the G20 countries were in the order of about 2 per cent of GDP on average at the time (Antunes et al. 2010: 5). By June 2010, however, Western governments committed themselves once again to reverse their activist fiscal policy position to achieve budgetary balance. In recent years, a slight rift seems to have appeared in the fiscal policy discourse among Western governments of Europe and North America, with the latter somewhat deviating in their commitments to balanced budgets, especially the Canadian government after 2015.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".