MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400153082 · doi:10.1787/33a06095-en

Designing Effective Independent Fiscal Institutions

2017· report· en· W4400153082 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD working papers on public governance · 2017
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Independent fiscal institutions (IFIs) serve to promote sound fiscal policy and sustainable public finances. Their numbers in the OECD have more than tripled in the past decade and continue to grow. Today IFIs are considered among the most important innovations in the emerging architecture of public financial management. The OECD has identified good practices for designing and operating effective IFIs through the OECD Recommendation on Principles for Independent Fiscal Institutions. The analysis presented in this paper draws on the OECD IFI database compiled from a first set of case studies of 18 OECD IFIs in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.180 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOECD working papers on public governanceSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207