O Comitê da Basiléia e a Arquitetura Regulatória no Brasil (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and Brazil's Regulatory Architecture)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portuguese Abstract: Visando incrementar a integracao nacional as financas globais, as autoridades regulatorias brasileiras tem progressivamente absorvido normas harmonizadas que afetam diretamente a arquitetura do mercado financeiro interno. O Comite da Basileia iniciou seus trabalhos de avaliacao do risco sistemico e proposicao de condutas mais de 4 decadas atras, sendo que ha 10 anos o Brasil passou a ter voz ativa em tais discussoes. Este capitulo visa conhecer a natureza de tais normas, a evolucao do envolvimento brasileiro e as implicacoes decorrentes dessa densificacao normativa, lancando mao de fontes sobretudo internacionais. English Abstract: Brazilian regulatory authorities have adhered to rules’ harmonization as a means to facilitate the country’s integration to global finance, producing a direct impact in its internal market architecture. The Basel Committee started contributing to systemic risk and market conduct proposals long ago, but it’s been only ten years that Brazil became a formal and active participant in those discussions. This chapter aims at examining the nature of these rules as to Brazil’s involvement and implications derived from such normative densification, mainly under an international perspective.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".