Building an Open, Integrated, and Resilient Global Financial System: The Road to Brisbane and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary assesses the progress made on the G20 regulatory reform agenda since the global financial crisis of 2007–08. The overarching goal of these reforms is to reduce the likelihood and impact of future crises and help to achieve a more open, integrated, and resilient global financial system and global economy. The commentary examines the important policy deliverables for the 2014 G20 Summit in Brisbane, Australia in the areas of strengthening bank capital and liquidity, ending the problem of “too-big-to-fail,” transforming shadow banking into resilient market-based finance, and building continuous over-the-counter derivatives markets. It also provides an overview of the plans to monitor implementation of these policies following the Brisbane Summit. Finally, it argues that balanced and targeted financial regulatory reforms will enhance competitiveness, competition, and consumer welfare.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".