MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124780852

The use of the Eurosystem’s monetary policy instruments and operational framework since 2012

2017· preprint· en· W3124780852 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

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollateralMarket liquidityMonetary policyAsset (computer security)Context (archaeology)Balance sheetQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessCounterpartyEconomicsFinancial systemMonetary economicsFinanceCredit riskComputer scienceComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the use of the Eurosystem's monetary policy instruments and the operational framework from the third quarter of 2012 until the first quarter of 2016. The paper reviews the context of Eurosystem market operations, counterparty and collateral framework, participation in tender operations, recourse to standing facilities, patterns of reserve fulfilment, outright asset purchase programmes, as well as the impact of the ECB’s monetary policy implementation on the Eurosystem's balance sheet and liquidity conditions. JEL Classification: D02, E43, E58, E65, G01

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.212 · 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