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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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