MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124063036

Financial Stability: The Next Frontier for Canadian Monetary Policy

2012· article· en· W3124063036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Ragan

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetary policySafeguardingPrice of stabilityInflation (cosmology)Financial stabilityFrontierEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)Inflation targetingFinancial crisisFinanceInterest rateIndex (typography)BusinessFinancial systemEconomic policyMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The monetary policy arrangement in Canada has proven very successful. Despite many and varied economic shocks, the Bank of Canada has established the necessary conditions under which the annual rate of inflation, as measured by the rate of change of the Consumer Price Index, has remained very close to its formal 2 percent target for more than 15 years. The recent financial crisis, however, has highlighted the fact that low inflation may not be enough to ensure the stability of the financial system and the economy in general. The goal of achieving and maintaining financial stability has become, in Canada and elsewhere, the next frontier of monetary policy. What is needed is a new Canadian institutional framework to oversee macro-prudential regulation, which would take a systemic approach to safeguarding the financial system as a whole, and clearly define the role of the Bank of Canada within it. It will require the federal government, first, to recognize the importance of the issue and, second, to take the necessary time to assemble the framework with the appropriate parties involved and to assign responsibilities clearly. Doing it right will involve bringing together various policy authorities with different perspectives, specialties, and primary mandates.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0210.020
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0320.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueC.D. Howe Institute CommentarySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207