Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
P erhaps the most fundamental question in monetary economics pertainsto the role of the government in providing money. A widely held viewamong economists is that the supply of media of exchange is an activity that should not be left to the private sector. Indeed, even Milton Friedman, who in most respects has viewed the economic role of the government quite narrowly, argues in Friedman (1960) that the provision of money is fraught with peculiar market failures and that the government should have a monopoly in the supply and control of the stock of circulating currency. Monetary systems that include the private provision of circulating media of exchange were not uncommon in the past. In the United States, most of the stock of currency in circulation prior to the Civil War consisted of notes issued by state-chartered banks. The U.S. pre–Civil War monetary system has been judged by some, but not all, as chaotic (Rolnick et al.1997; Rolnick and Weber 1983, 1984), since it included thousands of note-issuing banks and the quality of these notes was difficult to distinguish. Counterfeiting was a problem, and there was sometimes poor information on a particular bank’s chances of defaulting. However, the Suffolk Banking System in pre–Civil War New England is thought to have functioned quite efficiently (see Smith and Weber [1998]). In addition, the monetary system in place in Canada prior to 1935 featured private note issue by a small number of chartered banks, and this system also appears to have worked quite well (see Williamson [1999] and Champ, Smith, and Williamson [1996]). Private money systems are not just of historical interest. In the United States, the government monopoly on the issue of circulating media of exchange
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it