Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecuador has recently adopted the US dollar as legal tender. Salvador is on the verge of doing so; Guatemala and Costa-Rica are attempting at the same substitution to their own currency. But, the prospect is now more general. In other parts of the world, the dollarization progresses, too; Eastern-Timor and Kosovo have just before replaced their currency, respectively by the dollar and the mark; Balkanic countries are about to dol- larize ("euroize") their economies. Earlier, the South-African rand was substituted to the Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibie national currencies. Now we are far from the previous straight field of official dollarization. A few years ago, it concerned, except the specific case of Panama [1904], only "microscopic" territories like Pacific Island (Guam, Micronesia, etc.) or little cities as, in Europe, Andorra, Lichtenstein, Monaco or the Vatican. Now, official dollarization is quite another phenomenon. It is often presented as a general formula available to reform the International Monetary System (IMS). This solution is now proposed to replace a lot of currencies eroded by inflation, deficits, political crisis, if not by revolts and ethnic troubles. Initially, it seems quite logical to try to replace "minor currencies" by a few number of foreign currencies well identified by the markets and more credible. The main argument of this paper is precisely to discuss this prospect of dollarization used to simplify and rationalize the IMS. Before adopting this view, which seems too optimistic, it would be necessary to consider: - The sound and specific nature of dollarization as a "borrowing contact of credibility in the last resort". —The interest in dollarization, relatively to other exchange rate arrangements like Monetary Unions or Currency Boards. —A cost-benefits analysis of this substitution of a foreign currency to a local one. —An application of the dollarization formula to the Canadian dollar and Eastern Central European countries.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.011 |
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".