Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no doubt that on average the \n performance of state financial institutions around the world \n has been below the lowest expectations. Lack of governance, \n management skills, regulation, and transparency, and \n misguided incentives have contributed to discredit these \n institutions for supporting the development of local \n financial markets. However, the pro-active role that some \n state financial institutions have played in the recent \n crisis in allocating credit to sectors cyclically not \n attractive for commercial banks has brought back the \n question of whether some state ownership in the banking \n system would be preferable. This paper analyzes the \n experience of four state financial institutions that have \n performed relatively well in the past: Canada's \n Business Development Bank, Chile's BancoEstado, South \n Africa's Development Bank of Southern Africa, and \n Finland's Finnvera plc. The author finds that these \n institutions have different checks and balances to mitigate \n eventual mismanagement of resources. The author also finds \n that little progress has been made in measuring the policy \n performance of these institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".