MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405319923 · doi:10.17016/feds.2024.093

Duration of Capital Market Exclusion: An Empirical Investigation

2024· article· en· W4405319923 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel A. Dias, Christine Richmond, Grant Westfahl

Bibliographic record

VenueFinance and Economics Discussion Series · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsBerger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuration (music)EconomicsCapital (architecture)HistoryPhysicsAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the duration of market exclusion following a sovereign default and its resolution. We employ multiple definitions of market access, differentiating between gross versus net borrowing and partial versus full access, to measure the time it takes for countries to regain entry into international capital markets following a sovereign default and resolution. Our findings indicate that market re-access can occur immediately under less stringent definitions but may take several years when more demanding criteria are applied. Middle-income countries typically regain access more quickly than low-income nations, with significant variation across historical periods. Key factors influencing re-access include the occurrence of natural disasters prior to the default, the presence of an IMF program, the severity of investor losses, the country’s economic outlook, and global liquidity conditions. These findings contribute to the academic literature on sovereign defaults and inform the design of effective post-default support strategies by policymakers and international financial institutions.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinance and Economics Discussion SeriesSame topicEconomic theories and modelsFrench-language works237,207