Towards a New Bretton Woods? The First G20 Leaders Summit and the Regulation of Global Finance
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
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes This article was finished at the end of January 2009. An earlier version appeared as CIGI policy Brief #11, December 2008. We thank the Centre for International Governance Innovation for allowing us to reproduce material from that paper. David McCormick, undersecretary at the US Treasury department, quoted in Wheatley 2008 Wheatley, J. 2008. G20 calls for expanded role to combat economic crisis. Financial Times, 10 November [Google Scholar]. For the communiqué, see G20 Leaders 2008 G20 Leaders (2008), Declaration of the summit on financial markets and the world economy, G20, Washington, DC, 15 November. Available from: http://www.g20.org/Documents/g20_summit_declaration.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2009]. [Google Scholar]. For their influence see, for example, Porter 2005. Porter, T. 2005. Globalization and finance, Cambridge: Polity. [Google Scholar] Its members are the G7 countries, Australia, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland as well as various international organisations (Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develpment, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, European Central Bank, IOSCO, IASB, International Association of Insurance Supervisors, and the BCBS along with two other BIS-centred committees). For the IOSCO report, see International Organization of Securities Commissions 2004 International Organization of Securities Commissions. 2004. Code of conduct fundamentals for credit rating agencies IOSC, Madrid [Google Scholar].
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it