UNITED STATES AND CANADA U.S. Bank Deregulation in Historical Perspective . By Charles W. Calomiris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Pp. xxxii, 359. $54.95.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deregulation of banking in the United States during the past two decades is beginning to make American banking resemble that of other advanced countries. Banks are now free to operate nationwide branch systems, to combine commercial banking with investment banking and securities brokerage, and to offer insurance and other products previously restricted or prohibited. A generation ago banks could do none of these things. In this meaty collection of six essays (three with co-authors) previously published in different places during the 1990s, Charles Calomiris asks and provides answers to a number of questions concerning U.S. banking history and bank regulation. How and why did American banking become so uniquely different from banking in other countries? Why was the U.S. banking system more prone than those of other countries to banking panics and other types of financial disturbance? What were the effects of these differences on financial and economic efficiency? Why did a banking system so greatly regulated for more than a century by state and federal authorities become so greatly deregulated at the end of the twentieth century? Will there be still more deregulation as a new century begins? In the years ahead, how competitive will U.S. banks be in the increasingly global financial markets?
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.012 |
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".