MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252418013 · doi:10.22215/rera.v9i2.232

Boarding the Euro Plane: Euro Adoption in the Czech Republic and Slovakia

2015· article· en· W4252418013 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European and Russian Affairs · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPost-Communist Economic and Political Transition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCzechSlovakCurrencyConstructivism (international relations)PoliticsPolitical scienceEconomyEconomicsInternational relationsMacroeconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What explains the euro adoption strategies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia? How have each of these two countries performed under the regime they joined (Czech Republic: flexible exchange rates; Slovakia: in the euro area)? How has that experience affected Czech and Slovak policies towards euro adoption and their performance during the euro crisis? This paper asks these questions and seeks to give an answer to the question why Slovakia adopted the euro while the Czech Republic did not. We address these questions by taking an eclectic approach that draws on constructivism and symbolism, historical institutionalism and domestic politics. The paper examines five explanations based on these theoretical approaches: the inferiority-superiority factor; European identity and the ‘return’ to Europe; symbolic factor of the currency; euroskepticism; and economic structure and trade relations.

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.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.250 · 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