A Fixation with Floating: The Politics of Canada's Exchange Rate Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Since the 1930s, Canadian policy makers have demonstrated an unusually strong commitment to a floating exchange rate regime. A fixed exchange rate regime was embraced for only two brief periods between 1939–1950 and 1962–1970. This article examines the political basis of Canada's longstanding “fixation with floating,” an issue that is unexplored in existing scholarly literature. Drawing on the growing literature examining the politics of exchange rate regimes, the article shows how Canada's longstanding commitment to floating has stemmed from a combination of distinct domestic private economic interests, the beliefs of state policy makers, and the unique nature of the US-Canada relationship. Résumé.Depuis les années 1930, les responsables de la politique monétaire canadienne ont manifesté une prédilection soutenue pour un taux de change flottant. Le pays n'a connu de taux de change fixe que pendant deux courtes périodes, de 1939 à 1950 et de 1962 à 1970. Cet article examine les fondements politiques de cette préférence, sujet qui reste inexploré dans la littérature existante. S'inspirant des travaux de plus en plus nombreux sur la politique des taux de change, l'article démontre que la source politique de cette préférence pour un taux de change flottant réside dans les intérêts économiques des entreprises, les convictions des décisionnaires et la nature unique de la relation entre le Canada et les États-Unis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".