MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240891381 · doi:10.1108/oxan-db216838

Hungarian economic stimulus measures will leave gaps

2016· other· en· W4240891381 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerald expert briefings · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsStimulus (psychology)Quarter (Canadian coin)DeflationUnemploymentLabour economicsWageProductivityInflation (cosmology)Economic shortageGovernment (linguistics)Economic policyMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsMonetary policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subject The series of tax-related measures that the Fidesz government hopes will boost competitiveness and support GDP by reducing labour shortages. Significance Following disappointing economic growth of just 2.2% on an unadjusted basis in the third quarter, owing to a larger-than-expected drop in investment, Fidesz’s latest tax-related measures are well-timed, since the economy is expected to slow in the final quarter of 2016. The government insists no amendments will be needed in the state budget, and is now forecasting 3.1% GDP growth in 2017, after 2.5% this year. Impacts Value-added tax cuts and rises in public-sector minimum wages will cause inflation to rise faster in 2017, as deflationary trends disappear. The unemployment rate is expected to bottom out as workers return from neighbouring countries. The government will need to make complementary reforms in education and privatising the state-dominated energy and telecoms sectors. If it does not, competitiveness as measured by wage growth and productivity will remain subdued.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1310.071

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerald expert briefingsSame topicRegional Development and PolicyFrench-language works237,207