MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247246077 · doi:10.1257/jel.52.4.1160.r7

Book Reviews

2014· article· en· W4247246077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Literature · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismFiscal federalismDual federalismPolitical sciencePublic administrationCorporate governanceNew FederalismGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsEconomicsLawManagementDecentralization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ugo Troiano of the University of Michigan reviews “The Global Debt Crisis: Haunting U. S. and European Federalism”, by Paul E. Peterson and Daniel J. Nadler. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Eleven papers, previously presented at a conference held at Harvard University in August 2012, and revised prior to publication, examine the structural flaws in federal systems of government across the globe that have led to economic and political turmoil and present solutions to preserve and restore federal systems that meet the needs of struggling communities. Papers discuss federalism's emerging fiscal crisis; competitive federalism under pressure; whether market discipline can survive in the U.S. federation; putting a price on teacher pensions; structural flaws in the design of public pension plans; past and present high-risk investments by states and localities; between centralization and federalism in the European Union; German federalism at the crossroads; Spanish federalism in crisis; regional identity and fiscal constraints in Spanish federalism; and the resilience of Canadian federalism. Peterson is Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government and Director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Nadler is a PhD candidate at Harvard University.”

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)0.005
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2870.266

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 head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic LiteratureSame topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207