MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029745940

Lessons and Consequences of the envolving 2007-?. Credit Crunch

2010· article· en· W7029745940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAusterityCredit crunchFinancial crisisCrunchGovernment (linguistics)Financial marketInterest rateGlobal imbalances
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are neither economists nor academic scholars; however we are students of the markets\nhaving experienced the credit crunch on the front lines as institutional investors from a\ncountry that is neither in Europe nor is the United States (i.e. Canada). The credit crunch\nand related �Great Recession� have instilled havoc on the global economy. The crisis has\nled to a large contraction of the real economy of approximately 1% of real GDP in 2009,\nwhich could have been considerably larger without massive government sponsored stimulus\nplans. In the aftermath of every crisis there are always lessons to be learned. The main\ntakeaways from the most recent credit crunch centre on risk distortion, the flawed counterparty\nrisk offset model, excessive leverage, inherent conflicts of interest and the legacy\nof creating �too big to fail� financial institutions. As financial markets appear to have\nstepped back from the brink of destruction, we believe that there are three major consequences\nthat we are currently facing. First the global financial system will likely be irrevocably\nchanged by new regulations. Second, on the economic front, we are facing a\npost-recession period of relatively low global growth. Third, developing countries� governments\nare facing massive budget deficits and their debt/GDP levels are likely unsustainable\nand therefore requiring severe fiscal austerity programs

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)Same topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207