MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097006991 · doi:10.3390/math8111975

The Optimal Control of Government Stabilization Funds

2020· article· en· W3097006991 on OpenAlexafffund
Abel Cadenillas, Ricardo Huamán-Aguilar

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIncome fundManager of managers fundFund administrationFinanceTarget date fundSovereign wealth fundControl (management)Investment fundGovernment (linguistics)BusinessDebtClosed-end fundEconomicsVolatility (finance)Open-end fundFund accountingFeeder fundAccountingMicroeconomicsIncentive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the optimal control of a government stabilization fund, which is a mechanism to save money during good economic times to be used in bad economic times. The objective of the fund manager is to keep the fund as close as possible to a predetermined target. Accordingly, we consider a running cost associated with the difference between the actual fiscal fund and the fund target. The fund manager exerts control over the fund by making deposits in or withdrawals from the fund. The withdrawals are used to pay public debt or to finance government programs. We obtain, for the first time in the literature, the optimal band for the government stabilization fund. Our results are of interest to practitioners. For instance, we find that the higher the volatility, the larger the size of the optimal band. In particular, each country and state should have its own optimal fund band, in contrast to the “one-size-fits-all” approach that is often used in practice.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207