MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413465634 · doi:10.5089/9798229020732.002

Canada

2025· article· en· W4413465634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIMF Staff Country Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Technical Note focuses on Systemic Risk Analysis in Canada. The financial system has remained stable amid sizable swings in output, inflation, and interest rates. Structural vulnerabilities persist among Canadian households, with high debt levels and rising debt-servicing costs compared to G7 peers. The corporate sector has remained resilient despite sluggish growth during the pandemic and tighter financial conditions thereafter. However, a materialization of downside macroeconomic risks could impact the financial sector through several channels. Financial Sector Assessment Program bank solvency stress tests indicate that the seven Canadian systemic Debt-to-Income (DTIs) are resilient to the adverse scenario. Liquidity stress tests show that the systemic DTIs are overall liquid and resilient to sizable withdrawals of funding and market valuation shocks. An interconnectedness and contagion analysis evaluated the impact of funding and credit shocks among the six Domestic Systemically Important Banks and across sectors and borders. This interconnectedness, and the associated risks, require vigilant monitoring and analysis to identify potential vulnerabilities that could emerge in times of stress.

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 score0.317
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
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3170.061

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 head0.286
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIMF Staff Country ReportsSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207