MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241255008 · doi:10.5089/9781513527147.002

Canada

2020· article· en· W4241255008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIMF Staff Country Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecuritizationBusinessMortgage insuranceFinancial systemFinanceDebtStructured financeFinancial crisisSecondary mortgage marketMortgage underwritingFinancial fragilityEconomicsInsurance policyCasualty insurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Technical Note on Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management for the Canada focuses on housing finance. Housing finance is broadly resilient, but pockets of vulnerabilities exist. Mortgage finance is dominated by domestic systemically important financial institutions (D-SIFIs) and supported by the government via mortgage insurance, securitization guarantees, and other policies. With a market share of about 70 percent, D-SIFIs focus on prime borrowers, and their lending is backed by their strong balance sheets. The cost of prime mortgage financing is low and little differentiated, with credit risk being under-priced in some segments. Aspects of Canada’s mortgage finance may amplify procyclical effects of falling house prices during severe downturns. Core lenders focus on low-risk mortgage lending. In response to deteriorating household debt-servicing capacity, they may constrain new lending or renewals of maturing uninsured mortgages, potentially adding pressures on the housing market. Alternatively, a sudden adoption of risk-based pricing to accommodate financially weak borrowers might amplify household debt servicing fragility.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4380.151

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIMF Staff Country ReportsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207