MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254923284 · doi:10.21098/bemp.v13i4.397

QUARTERLY ANALYSIS: The Progress of Monetary, Banking and Payment System Quarter I - 2011

2011· article· en· W4254923284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Author Team of Quarterly Report Bank Indonesia

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Monetary Economics and Banking · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflation (cosmology)Monetary policyPrice of stabilityEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Monetary economicsCapital (architecture)Inflation targetingPaymentBusinessEconomic policyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Board of Governors Meeting (Rapat Dewan Gubernur/RDG) of Bank Indonesia on 12 April 2011 has decided to maintain the BI rate by 6.75%. This decision does not change the direction of Bank Indonesia's monetary policy which tends to be strict in an effort to control the inflationary pressures that are still high, amid the government efforts to reduce inflationary pressure from volatile foods group. The Board of Governors considered that the strengthening of the rupiah so far can reduce these inflationary pressures, particularly from the rising price of international commodities (imported inflation). In addition, to minimize the negative impact of short-term foreign capital flows on monetary stability and financial system, the Board of Governors also has decided to replace the one-month holding period on SBI to six-month holding period, which shall take effect on May 13, 2011. Looking ahead, Bank Indonesia assessed that the possibility of the BI rate level adjustment is still open to dampen the incoming inflationary pressures. Bank Indonesia believed that the implementation of monetary and macro-prudential policy mix, supported also by the strengthened coordination of government policy, will be able to maintain the macroeconomic stability and bring inflation to the target, which are 5% ± 1% in 2011 and 4.5% ± 1% in 2012.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Monetary Economics and BankingSame topicEconomic Growth and Fiscal PoliciesFrench-language works237,207