Competing visions for the U.S. monetary system, 1907-1913: the quest for an elastic currency and the rejection of Fisher's compensated dollar rule for price stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé cet article étudie les débats de réforme bancaire entre les théoriciens quantitativistes et leurs opposants, aux États-Unis, entre la panique bancaire de 1907 et la création du Système Fédéral de Réserves (FED) ; période dans laquelle se situe la publication de l’ouvrage d’Irving Fisher (et Harry G. Brown) Le pouvoir d’achat de la monnaie . Ces débats aboutirent au rejet de la proposition fishérienne du dollar compensé (une règle de variation du prix légal en or du dollar afin de stabiliser un indice du niveau général des prix) et à l’adoption d’une vision extrêmement différente de la banque centrale. L’accent est mis sur les contributions de Fisher, David Kinley, J. L. Laughlin, R. L. Owen, O. M. W. Sprague et de H. Parker Willis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".