L'accord monétaire de Maastricht et ses implications de politiques économiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The precised calendar of Maastricht treaty for setting up the european System of central banks (ESCB) and the european central bank (ECB) with a single currency can merely be explained by the concern of the member countries of having such a monetary integration before the end of the century. There's every chance that ESCB be formed with limited number of countries, namely: France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands. If the objectives of price controls and non monetisation of debt assigned to ESCB are unequivocal, the responsability of fixing the parity of écu vis-à-vis third currencies which belongs to the Council and the Parliament might deprive the ESCB of full scope in conducting monetary policy. In regard to fiscal policies, the coexistence of budgets of various natures and the conjonctural stabilizations programs in prospect render difficult any computation on future coordination policy or federal budget. Finally, ecu once in place as a single currency could extend beyond the communities, but its acceptance on financial and commercial markets beside the dollar and the yen is scarcely predictable. This tendancy toward currencies zone, thus repeating history of the years thirties, does not constitute any guaranty for the stability of international monetary System which would require a kind of multilateral surveillance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".