MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925390526 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/ksbg4

Forecasting Debt Crises with Regression: Testing the Performance of Simple Models

2023· other· en· W6925390526 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefaultLogistic regressionDebtDimension (graph theory)Regression analysisBad debtProbability of defaultSovereign defaultRegression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project provides a supplemental test to our pre-registered machine learning predictions (https://osf.io/mvwjy/?view_only=7bba3fe5e3164d80a9b338bd83583fcc) to evaluate whether logistic regression models can effectively predict sovereign debt crises. Building on recent theoretical work demonstrating that social science data has low intrinsic dimension (Morucci & Spirling, 2024), and our own machine learning analysis that identified key predictors of debt crises, we develop four regression models to forecast crisis onset. We aim to contribute to the ongoing debate about model complexity in prediction tasks. If simple OLS models perform similarly to random forests, this would support the argument that the curated nature of social science data limits the returns to model complexity. We will estimate the probability of debt crisis onset within a three-year window (2022-2024) using four logistic regression models with country fixed effects. Our predictions indicate the probability that a country will experience at least one debt crisis onset during 2022, 2023, or 2024. Following Chakrabarti and Zeaiter (2014), we define crisis onset as: (1) new default episode (minimum $1 million), (2) 30%+ increase in defaulted debt, or (3) IMF financing above 200% of annual quota. Each model is specified as: Pr(Crisis_it+1,t+2,t+3 = 1) = Λ(α_i + β'X_it) where α_i are country fixed effects, X_it are the predictor variables measured in 2021, and Λ is the logistic function. All predictor variables are measured as of 1960-2021. Data sources include World Bank, IMF, V-Dem, and authors' calculations as described in the original machine learning models (https://osf.io/mvwjy/?view_only=7bba3fe5e3164d80a9b338bd83583fcc). Models were estimated using the glm function in R with family=binomial(link="logit"). Model 1 - Core Economic Fundamentals: GDP per capita (ny_gdp_pcap_kd) Total reserves as % of external debt (fi_res_totl_dt_zs) Short-term external debt as % of total (stdebtall) External debt to reserves ratio (xtdebtres) Central government debt (cg) Crisis history variables (dyrs, d2, d3) Model 2 - Political Institutions: Proportion of years in default (ccrisis) Rule of law index (v2x_rule) Grants and other revenue (gc_rev_gotr_zs) Electoral democracy index (v2x_polyarchy) Crisis history variables (dyrs, d2, d3) Model 3 - Comprehensive Model: Top economic predictors (ny_gdp_pcap_kd, fi_res_totl_dt_zs, stdebtall) Top political predictors (ccrisis, v2x_rule, gc_rev_gotr_zs) Regional indicators (regionAfrica, regionEAsia) Crisis history variables (dyrs, d2, d3) Model 4 - Parsimonious Benchmark: GDP per capita (ny_gdp_pcap_kd) Years since last crisis (dyrs) Proportion of years in default (ccrisis) We hypothesize that these models will achieve predictive performance within 5% of our best random forest model. Our predictions from each model are found here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/scqyny7t4a2xpoafvln3w/country_predictions_2022_2024_fixed_effects.csv?rlkey=4vwy3baq9vlr2ch80qpwngus0&dl=0. The CSV file contains: country code from Correlates of War and predicted probabilities (0-1) for each of the four models. Predictions were generated on 20 June 2025 using R version 4.3.0. We will evaluate each model's prediction performance using: 1. ROC/AUC Analysis: Each model's AUC will be compared against: - Our benchmark confidence interval: 0.79 ± 1/√179 = [0.72, 0.86] - Our best random forest model (AUC = 0.793) - Each other to assess relative performance 2. Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit Test: - Divide 176 countries into 10 bins (excluding Zambia, Ghana, Sri Lanka) - Compare observed vs. expected crises per bin - Use Pearson χ² statistic to assess calibration 3. Direct Prediction Comparison: - Compare country-level predictions between regression and random forest models - Identify countries with the largest prediction differences Analysis: All countries in our sample (179 total, excluding micro-states and North Korea) 179 countries (176 for evaluation, excluding 3 countries with observed 2022 crises noted in first preregistration: Sri Lanka, Zambia, Ethiopia). Data on debt crises will become available in August 2025 from the Bank of Canada. We commit to evaluating these predictions and posting results, regardless of outcomes.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.226 · 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