MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7077059251 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v27i4.7780

Simple Rules for Determining How States Can Save for a Rainy Day

2025· article· en· W7077059251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Simple (philosophy)State (computer science)Business cycleOrder (exchange)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various articles have been written concerning the level of savings states should accumulate to weather an economic downturn, and since states have differing business cycle characteristics a one-size-fits-all approach does not seem to make much sense. Once the level of accumulated savings is determined, the next question concerns the savings rate that will enable the state to achieve its desired accumulated savings. This article builds on the work of Wagner and Elder (2007) and presents a simplified approach to determine the appropriate savings rate based on each state’s risk preferences.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207