Skipping ahead: The evolution of the world's finance markets 1914–1990 – A brief sketch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction When World War I broke out, Britain and the four frontier countries were among the richest in the world. Britain was the most fully developed, had the best articulated and most comprehensive set of financial intermediaries, and was the world's leading creditor. Per capita income was at least as high in the United States as in Britain, and the American economy was very much the larger – in fact, the largest in the world. The financial system was also well developed; American savings had begun to exceed domestic investment requirements; and the United States had taken up the role of an international lender. Canada had experienced an exceptionally high rate of growth in the two decades before the war, a rate sustained by an unusually large Canadian capacity (and willingness) to save and invest, and by a steady inflow of foreign capital. The Canadian economy was much smaller than the American, but per capita income was gaining on that of the United States. The banking system was strong; the securities markets were small, but effective and growing; and in other respects the system of intermediation was gaining in depth and strength. These countries seemed set on a course of successful modern economic growth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".