MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243949104 · doi:10.5089/9781513524627.002

People's Republic of China-Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

2019· article· en· W4243949104 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIMF Staff Country Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEmployee Welfare and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceSocial unrestUnrestChinaRecessionQuarter (Canadian coin)FellInequalityDevelopment economicsChinese economyEconomicsBusinessDemographic economicsEconomic growthGeographyPolitical scienceMacroeconomicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This 2019 Article IV Consultation with People’s Republic of China—Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) discusses that the economy is projected to start recovering next year, but the pace is expected to be gradual and both near- and medium-term risks have increased significantly, including from trade and technology tensions, ongoing social unrest, and structural challenges of insufficient housing supply and high income inequality. Hong Kong SAR is well placed to address both cyclical and structural challenges with its significant buffers thanks to its long history of prudent macroeconomic policies. Given that the fiscal framework permits deficits during economic downturns, government spending should be increased significantly in the areas of social safety nets, education/retraining, and infrastructure to cope with the cyclical downturn and address structural challenges of insufficient housing and high-income inequality. This should be complemented with measures to ensure fiscal sustainability and greater equity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.008

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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIMF Staff Country ReportsSame topicEmployee Welfare and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207