MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120405354 · doi:10.1111/pbaf.12280

Stringency of balanced budget laws and transparency of budgeting process

2021· article· en· W3120405354 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Haizhen Mou, Maritza Lozano Man Hing

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Budgeting &amp Finance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policies and Political Economy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Budget processCorporate governanceAccountingEconomicsIndex (typography)Process (computing)Balance (ability)BusinessPublic economicsMicroeconomicsFinanceComputer scienceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a framework to define and measure transparency in the budgeting process. We survey the main fiscal rules in the Canadian provinces from 1980 to 2018 and quantify them into a stringency index and a transparency index. Our findings show that more stringent balanced budget laws (BBLs) do not necessarily imply less transparency, while higher transparency requirements appear to reduce the effect of stringent BBLs on budget balance, possibly because transparency rules deter creative accounting. This study provides insights into the role of various fiscal rules in fiscal governance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Budgeting &amp FinanceSame topicFiscal Policies and Political EconomyFrench-language works237,207