MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172136248 · doi:10.3138/utlj.60.4.941

IS SYSTEMIC RISK RELEVANT TO SECURITIES REGULATION?

2010· article· en· W2172136248 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Regulation and Crises
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystemic riskBroker-dealerVariety (cybernetics)Argument (complex analysis)RealmBusinessFinancial regulationHybrid securityFinancial institutionFinancial marketFinancial systemEconomicsInvestment bankingFinancial crisisFinanceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global financial meltdown has led to a renewed focus on the purposes of securities regulation and on the expansion of these purposes to include considerations of systemic risk; yet the case for such an expansion has been assumed more than argued. This article derives an argument for expansion from developments in the financial markets. Traditionally, mitigating systemic risk has fallen within the realm of financial institution (i.e., prudential) regulation rather than securities law. However, developments in financial markets, including the bundling and sale of securitized products by a variety of complex institutions, are blurring the line between prudential regulation and securities law. This evolution makes systemic risk increasingly relevant to securities regulation. Consequently, the article argues, the securities regulatory regime should expand to encompass mitigating systemic risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it