MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994663559 · doi:10.1080/17487870.2019.1683011

The European Systemic Risk Board – governance and early experience

2019· article· en· W2994663559 on OpenAlex
Michael Ehrmann, Paul Schure

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Policy Reform · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystemic riskParallelsEuropean unionCorporate governanceRisk governanceIndependence (probability theory)BusinessRisk managementPolitical sciencePublic administrationAccountingEconomicsEconomic policyFinanceFinancial crisisOperations managementMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Systemic Risk Board is charged with the macroprudential oversight of the financial system in the European Union. We compare and contrast the ESRB with the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, which some scholars proposed as a role model for systemic risk management. There are parallels and some differences between these organisations. Neither institution has direct regulatory power, which could paradoxically be beneficial as it may help preserve their independence and objectivity in the long run. We also review the ESRB’s activities after it started in 2010 and assess the effect of its first public recommendation.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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