Trends and Challenges : 2010 Seoul Summit and Future of Financial Supervisory Board (FSB) as the Fourth Pillar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
G-20 schedules Seoul Summit in Nov. 2010 two years after Nov. 14-15, 2008 Washington Summit adopted five principles and 26 action items. The most significant action item to be completed by March 2009 was to reinvent the FSF with expanded membership as the FSB--the focal arena to find solutions to the crisis. It was accomplished through the charter at the Plenary Meeting in Jun. 2009. However, all the other pending matters were not moved forward as desired. London, Pittsburgh and Toronto Summits repeat the same story: the systematic risks needed to be worked out; new accounting standards needed to be established; macro-prudential policies needed to be monitored; early warning exercises needed to be developed; international cooperation and coordination needed to be expedited, etc. I argue Seoul Summit would be the right venue to establish the FSB as the international institute to design and implement the new international financial regulatory system. As the fourth pillar, the FSB should be able to coordinate ISSBs to the effect that more effective international standards are developed and standards are steered into international treaties.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".