Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The timely and orderly resolution of sovereign debt crises has long been a key challenge facing the global financial architecture. The framework for crisis resolution evolved in response to the capital account crises of the 1990s (Mexico, Russia, Southeast Asia), the Argentine crisis of 2001 and its aftermath, and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008–9 which morphed into the Euro area debt crisis of 2010–12. Efforts to expedite crisis resolution involved a two-pronged approach, one focusing on IMF policies and lending facilities and the other on ways to overcome the collective action problems involved in restructuring securitized debt. This paper examines these efforts in the context of the crises that triggered them and provides some guidance for the future. It argues that the way forward involves action on several fronts, including restoration of the essential principle that IMF programs should aim at reaching a manageable debt position within the program period with a high probability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".