Fighting the Joint-Decision Trap: Canadian Regulation in the Securities Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The globalization of finance has brought about important changes in the international, regional and national regulatory structure of finance. One of the effects of financial globalization has been to increase the centralization of legislative and regulatory authority over financial markets, especially in federal states. In the United States, legislative changes in the 1990s have facilitated cross-pillar and cross-states financial services sector activity. The US is moving towards a national marketplace in the finance industry under the watchful eyes of national regulators. Globalization has also led to a centralization of authority in the Australian federal state in the financial services sector through the creation of two revamped national regulators to ensure firms ’ solvency and to oversee market actors. Lütz demonstrates that the German response to the globalization of finance has been to move authority away from the Lander towards the central government (1998). Great Britain and France, although not federal states, have also rationalized their regulatory structure around the turn of the millennium. Even in Canada, where it would appear that constitutional concerns would impede centralization, Coleman argues that following the dismantling of the four pillars policy in 1987 and 1992
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".