Canada's Monetary Choices in North America and Britain's in Europe -- Economic Parallels and Political Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: There are strong economic arguments in favour of one money for one market, but multiple currencies continue to exist because of network externalities supported by national legal restrictions. The national currencies of Canada and Britain will not vanish spontaneously as the result of market forces, but they could be eliminated by acts of policy. Each country currently faces a choice between competing monetary orders, and in each of them the status quo, based on a national currency and inflation targeting, is working rather well; but the alternatives available are very different. Britain can join an already functioning European monetary order that is a component of a broader and still evolving political order, and its choice must ultimately depend upon its electorate’s degree of trust in domestic versus European monetary institutions. The United States have no interest in sharing authority over their own monetary arrangements with Canada, let alone with a new supra-national central bank, so the choice facing the Canadian electorate is between the status quo and unilateral dollarization, a monetary order that is clearly inferior on both economic and political grounds. * This paper was presentated at a conference on “Britain and Canada and their Large Neighbouring Monetary Unions ” to be held at the University of Victoria, Victoria BC, on
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".