MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912455430 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v11i1.52965

Alberta's Long-Term Fiscal Future

2018· article· en· W2912455430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Trevor Tombe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)EconomicsEnvironmental sciencePhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alberta’s short-term fiscal challenges are well known, but its long-term ones are more significant. An aging population, a high reliance on non-renewable resource revenue, and rising debt levels will increasingly widen the current gap between spending and revenue. This paper estimates how large this gap is and where it is headed in the coming decades. Combining detailed data and projections for macroeconomic and demographic variables with a rich model of Alberta’s budget, this report quantifies the scale of the province’s fiscal challenge and explores potential ways to address it. Overall, I find the present value of the difference between spending and non-resource revenues is 4.2 per cent of GDP between 2018 and 2100. By 2040, the fiscal gap that year will be roughly 44 per cent of controllable government revenue, 29 per cent of program spending, and the equivalent of over 4 per cent of GDP. In present value terms, the fiscal gap between now and 2040 is equivalent to over $250 billion today. I further find that debt levels are not on a sustainable path, as the long-run debt obligations exceed the government’s future ability to service that debt without significant policy changes. Meaningful action on both spending and revenue can address the province’s financial challenges. I explore various potential options. Without sustained, disciplined, and transparent action today, Alberta faces a precarious fiscal future.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207