MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013377860 · doi:10.1080/07036337.2020.1730355

Euro adoption policies in the second decade – the remarkable cases of the Baltic States

2020· article· en· W3013377860 on OpenAlexaff
Assem Dandashly, Amy Verdun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of European Integration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)EconomicsMember statesInternational economicsEuropean debt crisisEconomic and monetary unionEuropean unionStability and Growth PactDebtChoseSovereigntyInternational tradeEconomic policyPoliticsPolitical scienceEuropean integrationFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second decade of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), starting with the financial crisis morphing into the sovereign debt crisis, had diverging effects on member states. The Baltic States were hit particularly hard. Faced with an immediate collapse of their economies, the Baltic States were advised by international organisations to float their currencies; instead, these countries chose to speed up their commitment to join the euro including the choice to keep the exchange rate fixed. Why? In this paper, we argue that the main reason for this decision needs to be found in the domestic politics of these three Baltic States. The domestic actors we look at include, among others, monetary authorities, government and opposition. Even when faced with strong international criticism, the three Baltic State governments chose their own path, which in this case included continuing their planned euro adoption policies even in the face of costly domestic adjustments.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of European IntegrationSame topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207