International Financial Governance and “Global” Finance: Will Canada Matter in 25 Years?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines Canada's contributions to the governance of global finance in the past and explores what they are likely to be in the future. First, it begins with an examination of global finance: what it is, why it matters, and how it is transforming. Second, from the adoption of the Bretton Woods system to the present day, Canada has made substantial contributions to the development of a resilient and functional, if imperfect, financial system. Although Canadians (and Canada) have relatively little power in conventional terms, the article explores why they have substantial resources, both technical and political, to model behaviour, frame and reframe issues, participate in institutions, and create new institutional structures that shape global financial governance. The present and future of Canadian involvement in global finance is examined. Canada's role as a facilitator of political interaction on these issues will be a welcome and constructive resource in the future as the challenges posed by rapid transformation and innovation in global finance (as well as the failures of easy answers to contain these forces) become increasingly apparent.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".