Expectations of privacy and market abuse ‐ support for the Financial Services and Markets Act and the Canadian approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduces the UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), a determined effort to modernise financial regulation which creates the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as a monolithic regulator and the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal as an appellate channel. Shows how the Act represents a shift from self‐regulation to statutory regulation, remedying the shortcomings of the 1986 Financial Services Act. Outlines the FSA’s powers, and how they might conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. Compares the FSMA with the Canadian approach to the questions of balancing regulation and public confidence in the market on one side, with protection of individual rights on the other; these concerns are embodied respectively in the Securities Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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 | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".