How Regulating Risk and Eschewing Competition Can Ameliorate a Global Financial Crisis: Canada's Perspectives and Experiences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article identifies several key aspects of the Canadian banking regulatory regime that contribute to its stability. At the same time, it calls into question the current consensus that Canadian banking governance has been uniformly more heavily regulated than that of the United States. It is not the quantity of regulation that matters, but rather the quality. After all, the agents at the heart of the crisis in the United States were themselves highly, if inappropriately, regulated. The banks disclosed the types of instruments they used and quantified their risks. The article proceeds in a context of the overarching question of the ostensible trade-off between financial sector entrepreneurship and innovation on the one hand and stability in banking policy on the other, calling into question the assertions of law-and-economics jurists who argue that the true cost of stability in the financial sector is a less competitive and less dynamic capital market.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it