MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

REGINAL BUDGETS IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2019: IS THERE GROWTH POTENTIAL?

2019· article· en· W3005957316 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lyudmila Lykova

Bibliographic record

VenueFederalism · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEconomic and Technological Developments in Russia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)RevenueRussian federationTax revenueExciseEconomicsFederal budgetCapital incomeEconomic policyCapital (architecture)Personal incomeBusinessRussian economyFinancePublic economicsMacroeconomicsTax reformGeographyEconomic systemInternational taxation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been an increase of the RF subjects consolidated budgets revenues in the first quarter of 2019. It takes place together with the slowdown in economic growth. The basis of this budget revenue growth was formed by corporate income tax receipts (results of final calculations of previous year), personal income tax and excise. In contrast to the Federal budget, the subjects of the Russian Federation used most of the revenue growth to increase funding at the beginning of the year. Тhus, in the first quarter of the year, the priorities for the consolidated budgets of the subjects of the Russian Federation were education, social policy and housing and communal services. At the same time, the volume of investments in fixed capital at the expense of regional budgets has significantly decreased, largely determining the overall dynamics of this indicator. The problem of budget deficits remains for several Russian regions despite the positive dynamics of revenues. It requires restraining the growth of key budget expenditures.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederalismSame topicEconomic and Technological Developments in RussiaFrench-language works237,207