MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Central Banking’s Long March over the Decades

2019· book-chapter· en· W2964905863 on OpenAlexaff
David G. Mayes, Pierre L. Siklos, Jan‐Egbert Sturm

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance sheetVariety (cybernetics)Scope (computer science)Financial crisisMonetary policyIndependence (probability theory)Corporate governanceFinancial systemInstitutionEconomicsBusinessAccountingPolitical scienceMacroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter covers central bank topics including governance, independence, balance-sheet and crisis management, and challenges in macroeconomic modeling. It is intended as a summary of current and potential challenges faced by central banks in monetary policy and maintenance of financial system stability. The chapter covers a variety of views about past and present behavior and performance of central banks around the world, providing a state-of-the-art perspective on likely future challenges to be faced by this critical institution. The chapter points out gaps where future research is likely to be fruitful and the questions and issues that remain unanswered. One motivation for the book is the financial crisis of 2007–2009. Nevertheless, several themes covered and analyzed predate the crisis. The aftermath of the crisis also raised new questions about the scope, influence, and response of central banks in a changing macroeconomic landscape. The chapter also touches on fintech and digital currencies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency→French-language works237,207→