MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417460624 · doi:10.3790/aeq.2023.1467401

Do Government Budget Deficits Raise Bond Yields? Evidence from Canada

2023· article· W4417460624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard J. Cebula, Franklin G. Mixon, Jiayi Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economics Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policies and Political Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanable fundsTreasurySubsidyYield (engineering)Crowding outGovernment spendingBondGovernment (linguistics)Federal budgetGovernment bond

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study applies quarterly data from 2013 through 2022 to a loanable funds framework to determine whether there is recent evidence that higher deficits and debt (both as a percentage of GDP) elevate the real yield on 10-year Canadian Treasury bonds. The study period is unique in that includes several quarters during which the COVID-19 pandemic was hampering the Canadian economy. Issues caused by the pandemic led the Canadian federal government to boost its spending by 70 % through $100 billion spending packages like the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. Results from an autoregressive two-stage least squares regression suggest that larger Canadian federal government budget deficits and a higher debt-to-GDP ratio both elevated the real yield on 10-year Canadian government bonds. Other results indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic had its own positive impact on the real yield, potentially adding to any crowding out problems associated with higher real interest rates in Canada.

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)0.014
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.202
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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Economics QuarterlySame topicFiscal Policies and Political EconomyFrench-language works237,207