MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7149658381 · doi:10.17132/2693-3179.1324

Canada: Term Loan Facility

2022· article· en· W7149658381 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Priya Sankar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Crises · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPledgeMarket liquidityLoanTerm loanPaymentNon-conforming loanTerm (time)Loan-to-value ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the Global Financial Crisis deepened into late 2008, liquidity continued to deteriorate in Canadian credit markets. Canadian financial institutions curtailed their lending, which increased funding costs and reduced market-wide liquidity. In response, the Bank of Canada (BoC) took extraordinary measures to provide liquidity to financial market participants and improve credit conditions. On November 12, 2008, the BoC established the Term Loan Facility (TLF) to extend credit at a penalty rate for terms of approximately one month. The TLF was available to 14 major banks that were direct participants in Canada’s payments system, the Large Value Transfer System. Participants could pledge their relatively illiquid, CAD-denominated non-mortgage loan portfolios in exchange for central bank funding. The BoC established two other liquidity facilities during this period, the regular Term PRA and the Term PRA for Private Sector Instruments. The BoC conducted 50 auctions through the TLF, of which just seven were subscribed. In total, it auctioned CAD 5.2 billion (USD 4.2 billion) in funding. The limited participation in the TLF may suggest that Canadian financial institutions were able to obtain short-term funding from other, more cost-effective sources. The TLF expired on October 28, 2009, along with the Term PRA for Private Sector Instruments.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Financial CrisesSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207