Le système monétaire européen : Un point de vue nord américain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is the european monetary System (EMS) a useful approach to the problems it is meant to solve and to the pursuit of the objectives that its promoters have set for themselves? A review by the authors of a number of economic motives which underly the creation of the EMS leads them to conclude that the various economic problems which the european readily blame on floating exchange rates find in fact their origins in the economic policies pursued by the national governments. Moreover, the authors consider that the defense of parities in the EMS, either through intervention in the exchange markets or by other means, can involve high economic costs and that in the longer run market forces always triumph when parities no longer reflect the fundamental positions of the respective economies. Among the other factors which limit the usefulness of the EMS the authors identify the continuing lack of macro-economic policy coordination by participating countries, its regional character, the underestimation of the importance of the american dollar in the international monetary system and the impact of its fluctuations on european currencies and the tendency of the EMS to harmonize inflation rates at a higher level than should be aimed for. The authors therefore conclude that it is doubtful that the EMS constitutes a useful instrument of economic policy and that efforts towards european monetary union based on such a system of parities can be successful under present circumstances.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".