MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7075619139

Poland - Public Expenditure Review : Background Papers

2012· other· en· W7075619139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2012
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkfarePublic expenditureContext (archaeology)WageWelfare statePublic sectorWelfareQuarter (Canadian coin)PillarSocial Welfare
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report looks at public spending on
\n pensions, education, health, social assistance, labor market
\n programs, and public wages. Presenting the findings of a
\n series of studies and notes compiled sice April 2009, it
\n highlights how reforming such spending, which comprises
\n about one quarter of gross domestic product (GDP), is
\n essential for mitigating the impact of the economic crisis
\n and for transforming Poland from a welfare state to a
\n workfare society in line with Government's Vision 2030.
\n The report has two main messages. First, Poland can take
\n measures to reduce public expenditures on social sectors and
\n public wages by around 2.3 percentage points over the next
\n three years. Second, beyond supporting the fiscal adjustment
\n required in the context of the economic crisis, public
\n expenditure reforms can also help bring about structural
\n changes envisioned as part of the Government's strategy
\n for 2030. This report provides a comprehensive assessment of
\n Poland's social sector and public wage polices and lays
\n out options for reform. The summary report has five parts.
\n The first part lays out the macroeconomic context. It
\n emphasizes that Poland has weathered the global economic
\n crisis remarkably well but that the recovery is likely to be
\n feeble and subject to uncertainty. The next part discusses
\n the fiscal fallout of the crisis and argues that public
\n expenditure reform should be a crucial pillar for fiscal
\n consolidation. Sections three to five contain the main
\n findings of the report. Section three presents a list of
\n important reforms of public expenditures on social sectors
\n and wages in support of Vision 2030. Section four simulates
\n the fiscal impact of public expenditure reforms, with a
\n particular focus on state budget expenditures. The final
\n section discusses how institutional reforms in the areas of
\n medium-term and performance-based budget can support the
\n reform agenda. Volume two presents the detailed analyses of
\n social sectors and institutional reforms of public finance.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207