MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121484190

Where the Bucks Stop: A Shadow Federal Budget for 2016

2016· article· en· W3121484190 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadow (psychology)Government (linguistics)Federal budgetPopulationFinanceEconomicsDebtBusinessEconomic policyFiscal year
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2016 edition of the C.D. Howe Institute’s annual Shadow Federal Budget puts a sustainable financial position and fiscal path at the centre of its plans. Confidence that the country will successfully navigate an environment of slower global growth and population aging is an essential backdrop for government measures to support economic growth in the medium and long term and to promote better opportunities for all Canadians. This Shadow Budget reflects our view that the new government in Ottawa must temper the sense created by the election campaign and early post-election announcements that there are no limits to what the federal government can spend and borrow. The commitment during the election campaign to borrow for infrastructure spending can justify only modest deficits: most federal infrastructure projects last a long time, and writing their cost off over long periods adds modest amounts to annual expenditure. Deficits beyond what capital projects justify add to the federal government’s net debt, and hurt growth by absorbing saving that would otherwise fund Canadian investment. Canada needs fiscal measures that will boost productive capacity. This Shadow Budget emphasizes growth-friendly tax policy, openness to trade and competition, and supportive reform of institutions and regulations. It prioritizes spending on federal infrastructure projects while holding the line on the funding already committed for projects under provincial or municipal control. The Shadow Budget will support financial sustainability by reforming federal employee compensation arrangements, providing a more accurate picture of Ottawa’s balance sheet, ensuring federal transfers to the provinces stay on a sustainable course, and limiting exposure to contingent mortgage insurance liabilities. Looking to the future, a key theme of this Shadow Budget is improving opportunities for Canadians. It proposes new spending in several areas, including federal support for provincial drug programs and onreserve education, and proposes measures to level the playing field for Canadians saving for retirement. Reflecting our approach of holding the line in some areas and increasing spending in others, this 2016 Shadow Budget projects modest deficits of $15.3 billion and $12.2 billion over the next two fiscal years, setting the stage for a return to surplus in 2019/20.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.271 · 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