MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W302898046

The Influence of Foreign Direct Investments on Montenegro Payment Balance

2013· article· en· W302898046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ana Gardašević

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrent accountBalance of paymentsForeign direct investmentEconomicsBalance (ability)Quarter (Canadian coin)External debtInternational economicsMonetary economicsBusinessMacroeconomicsDebtExchange rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, with help of econometric analysis we will answer the question to which extent up to date foreign direct investments influenced Montenegro current account. Regression analysis brings to conclusion that if foreign direct investments should increase for 1%, current account deficit will increase for 0.00024% after the first quarter and 0.000227% after the second quarter. More significant effects from the direct foreign investments on Montenegrin payment balance could be seen in some period in future, if it would concentrate on new "more quality" foreign direct investments that would be export oriented. Knowing that foreign direct investments were the main source of funding current account deficit in the previous period, and that absorption possibilities for the inflow of foreign direct investments still exist, it should be continued with attracting the same mentioned, because it can help in the change of production and export structure, because with current level of domestic savings and outside debt it is unimaginable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207