Directors as guardians of the public interest: lessons from the Irish banking crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the role played by the ‘public interest directors' appointed to the Irish credit institutions in the wake of the Irish Government's blanket deposit guarantee in 2008. Based on private interviews, it explores their experiences in interpreting the term ‘public interest’ and fulfilling their perceived responsibilities. Their experiences are also examined through the prism of the public interest scholarship in order to confirm or debunk existing hypotheses as to their likely reception and effectiveness. The article also analyses the nature of the duty imposed on all directors pursuant to section 48 of the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010 to have regard to a wide range of public interest factors in the performance of their functions. A unique feature of this duty and by contrast to section 172 of the UK Companies Act 2006, it is expressly stated to take priority over any other duty of the directors to the extent of any inconsistency. As the Irish experience demonstrates, even this rather extreme measure is not a guarantee of clarity of focus and easy decision-making.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".