MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400789583 · doi:10.5089/9798400279966.002

Canada

2024· article· en· W4400789583 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIMF Staff Country Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsFinancial crisisRecessionInflation (cosmology)ProductivityImmigrationMonetary policyMonetary economicsEconomic policyMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2024 Article IV Consultation discusses that the Canadian economy appears to have achieved a soft landing: inflation has come down almost to target, while a recession has been avoided, with gross domestic product growth cushioned by surging immigration even as per capita income has shrunk. Housing unaffordability has risen to levels not seen in a generation, with demand boosted by immigration and supply facing continued challenges to expansion. Canada’s recent introduction of quantitative fiscal objectives is welcome and could be followed by adoption of a formal fiscal framework to anchor fiscal policy even more effectively. The authorities’ multipronged approach to address housing affordability is expected to yield results over time, but further efforts will likely be needed at all levels of government to address the large housing supply gap. Boosting Canada’s lagging productivity growth—including by taking steps to promote investment and R&D, harness artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies (within appropriate guardrails), and capitalize on the green transition—is a key priority for the country’s long-term prospects. Given skills gaps and demographic pressures, immigration remains a critical ingredient.

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)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5250.187

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIMF Staff Country ReportsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207