MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893188069 · doi:10.15290/oolscprepi.2018.28

Central Bank Digital Currency – the Latest Challenge for the Theory of Monetary Law

2018· article· en· W2893188069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johan Schweigl

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital currencyCurrencyEconomicsMonetary economicsComputer scienceKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last few years, several central banks, such as Bank of England, Sveriges Riksbank, Bank of Canada, ECB or Central Bank of Russian Federation, considered issuance of a new type of money -central bank digital currency. The monetary law theory distinguishes between three currently existing types of money, i.e. cash, deposit money, and reserves. Each of these types has a special combination of features that make them unique. The monetary law theory, however, has not carried out complex theoretical analysis of the central bank digital currency. In this paper, the Author focused on the theoretical aspects of the new type of money -the central bank digital currency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal PoliciesFrench-language works237,207