L’évolution des Accords de Bâle : d’une approche microprudentielle à un cadre macroprudentiel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La crise financière des subprimes a conduit les autorités prudentielles à repenser le cadre normatif des Accords de Bâle pour y inclure un volet macroprudentiel. Cette vision plus générale des risques doit permettre de pallier les insuffisances des Accords dits Bâle I et Bâle II, qui s’inscrivent exclusivement dans une vision microprudentielle des risques. Cet article analyse l’ajustement des Accords de Bâle pour faire face aux défis présentés par la crise de 2008. La récente évolution vers un cadre macroprudentiel est liée aux failles générées par la généralisation fallacieuse de l’évaluation individualisée des risques financiers. Le nouvel Accord (Bâle III) inclut une exigence en fonds propres pour des risques globaux. Néanmoins, les défis auxquels sont confrontées les autorités de régulation restent nombreux.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".