MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210611395 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15020064

Breakdown of Government Debt into Components in Euro Area Countries

2022· article· en· W4210611395 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
László Török

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policies and Political Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebt-to-GDP ratioDebtGovernment debtInternal debtDebt levels and flowsDebt ratioEconomicsSustainabilityGovernment (linguistics)External debtPublic financeFiscal sustainabilityMonetary economicsInternational economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pandemic that erupted in 2020 generated a significant increase in public debt, which is likely to draw the attention of economic policy and the economic profession to the evolution and sustainability of debt. This study first shows how the gross sovereign nominal consolidated government debt of the euro area member states developed between 2011 and 2019. Using conventional breakdown and correlation calculation methods, the study analyzes how closely the three components are related to the government debt ratio. The three components are: budget balance, economic growth, and real interest rates. The study then groups the member states into groups using the hierarchical cluster analysis of the SPSS program. The “composite” rankings formed on the basis of the correlation coefficients proved to be well-understood, and the examined countries were given a clear position within the cluster. Finally, a verbal macroeconomic analysis of the member states in the same group follows in terms of the relevance of each component in the evolution of their public debt. The analysis shows that each independent variable had a significantly different effect on the change in the government debt ratio of each member state. The results and the correlations established can also be used later to examine the sustainability of public debt in the euro area.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.174 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFiscal Policies and Political EconomyFrench-language works237,207