MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994891332 · doi:10.4000/add.1422

Pour une responsabilité civile européenne élargie des agences de notation de crédit

2019· article· fr· W2994891332 on OpenAlexaff
Farouk Bellil

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Annales de droit · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Regulation and Crises
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les toutes premières sanctions prononcées par l’Autorité européenne des marchés financiers à l’encontre des agences de notation de crédit, ainsi que les récentes mises en cause de leur responsabilité civile aux États-Unis et en Australie invitent à s’interroger sur l’efficacité de la règlementation européenne en la matière. L’instauration d’un régime de responsabilité limité des agences de notation par le règlement 462/2013 peut-il permettre d’aboutir à des décisions semblables? La question est essentielle tant au regard du rôle fondamental des agences dans l’évaluation du risque de crédit que de leur influence sur la confiance et les décisions prises par les investisseurs sur les marchés. Envisager la mise en place d’une obligation de diligence des agences de notation pourrait permettre une mise œuvre effective de leur responsabilité.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.217 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Annales de droitSame topicGlobal Financial Regulation and CrisesFrench-language works237,207