<i>Battles for the Standard: Bimetallism and the Spread of the Gold Standard in the Nineteenth Century</i>. By Ted Wilson. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000. Pp. xi, 200.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early twenty-first century, the choice of monetary regime has again become a matter of political and economic debate. The European experiment in monetary union is being watched, with a mixture of hope and fear, by policymakers in the Americas, and most likely in Asia as well. Perhaps this explains the resurgence of interest in the battles over monetary regimes in the nineteenth century, when a world that had been more or less bimetallic for several centuries switched to the gold standard. Why did it happen? Why did it happen then? Was it a change for the better or not? What were the relative contributions of economic determinism, network externalities, and global capitalism? It is this “range of territory” (now I understand why this cliché is overused!) that Ted Wilson addresses, arguing—albeit in a multicausal framework—for the importance of network externalities, and suggesting that the gold standard occurred by default rather than design. Britain went on gold early and somewhat accidentally; Germany, France and the United States followed; aspiring borrowers on the periphery did not have much choice—if they wanted access to international capital markets—so they followed, too.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".