MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1544835537

The Secret of Canadian Banking: Common Sense?

2009· article· en· W1544835537 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

VenueWorld Economy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Regulation and Crises
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringInvestment bankingFinancial systemGovernment (linguistics)Deposit insuranceIrishBusinessRetail bankingIndigenousEconomic interventionismInvestment (military)FinanceEconomicsEconomyEconomic policyPolitical scienceLawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article looks at the basic reasons why the Canadian banking system was recently judged by the World Economic Forum to be the soundest in the world. It does so by first examining the basic functions of a financial system and what Canadian banks are allowed to do as intermediaries within that system. It then considers the market structure of Canadian banking and the role of the Canadian government in regulating the financial system. It finishes with a discussion of the four basic management areas of any financial institution: liquidity management, asset management, liability management and capital management. On all dimensions the Canadian banks seem to be conservatively managed, well regulated and operating in a benign economic environment without obvious systemic risks, mainly due to the absence of a competing ‘parallel' intermediation system as exists in the United States.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.185 · 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