Bibliographic record
Abstract
The burden of Quebec's debt has changed significantly since 1960. While the province incurred very little debt in the years before the Quiet Revolution, its borrowing increased steadily from 1961 until the mid-1990s. By the time the trend was reversed, the Quebec government had recorded a deficit for 40 consecutive years. Having achieved one of the heaviest debt burdens, measured as a share of gross domestic product, among the Canadian provinces, and having seen two rapid downgrades of its credit rating by Moody's in the mid-1990s, fearing a further downgrade the Quebec government took steps to clean up its public finances. After outlining the evolution of Quebec's debt since the early 1960s, this article briefly describes two statutes enacted by the government to provide greater transparency with respect to the province's finances, enabling better management of its budget and debt. These statutes are the Balanced Budget Act, passed in 1996, and the Act To Reduce the Debt and Establish the Generations Fund, passed in 2006. The article discusses the impact of the Great Recession on the province's budgetary balance and indebtedness, and shows how Quebec's financial situation has changed in terms of its fiscal balance, debt, debt interest, and credit rating. It is now possible to affirm that the two statutes adopted by the government have clearly helped to improve Quebec's fiscal position.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".