Le pouvoir monétaire international : le statut international d’une monnaie est-il un instrument de puissance ou un facteur de fragilité?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of replacing the dollar as the principal instrument of international fund transfers, both official and private, is becoming increasingly acute. In attempting to assess to what extent the potential « successors » to American currency - the Deutsche Mark, S.T.R., crown - can, claim to be able at least to support it if not to replace it, it would be appropriate to identify the conditions in which the « internationalization » of first, the Pound sterling, and secondly, the dollar, was accomplished. Such an analysis makes it possible to consider the advantages and disadvantages inherent upon the use of a national currency as an international currency both for the country issuing that currency as well as for the international community. Experience shows, in fact, that « international monetary power » is a two-edged sword which can, undoubtedly be used to promote the « imperialist » aspirations of a state but which can also be shown to be a potential fact or for weakening its economy and bringing about the eventual undermining of the lutter. This state of affairs explains the reservations of the Germon, Japanese and Swiss monetary authorities with respect to sharing with the United States the burden of the « international monetary power » that the latter had exercised for several decades. These reservations however will likely not be sufficient to prevent the progressive internationalization of a currency such as the Deutsche Mark ... unless extensive measures are taken quickly to ensure the international growth of exclusively international instruments such as S.T.R. and the crown.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".