European Financial Integration: Finally the Great Leap Forward?*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent history of financial integration in Europe can generally be considered a success story, notwithstanding the crisis that has plagued financial sectors in Europe and elsewhere since 2007. There has been significant progress in the area of regulatory integration; however, an in-depth analysis requires also taking into account what happens on the ground – that is, at the market level. As a consequence of this larger and more interactive point of view, this article shows that financial integration is less uniform than a cursory look at the evolution of European Union regulation would have us believe. This is because national contexts continue to bear considerable weight. In particular, any explanation of the current state of affairs in the EU's financial integration needs to take the market–regulation nexus seriously. This implies looking at market structure as well as at the political and institutional context. This article suggest a framework to explain more adequately the contradictions between regulatory and market integration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".