Іноземний досвід регулювання системно важливих банків
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers methodological approaches and practical aspects of \nidentification and regulation of systemically important banks at the national and \nthe global levels. The article contains thorough overview of the Basel principles for \nidentification and building a system for regulation of activities of the systemically \nimportant banks at the global level. The author gives a list of the main documents of \nthe Basel Committee regarding matters related to the identification and regulation of \nthe systemically important banks. The research gives a list of the global systemically \nimportant banks identified by the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability \nBoard. The article discloses the additional requirements for equity for supplemental \ncoverage of bank losses being identified by the Basel Committee and the Financial \nStability Board as the global systemically important ones. The global systemically \nimportant banks identified by the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability \nBoard have been analyzed in the context of regional distribution. \nThe article presents the main categories of the system importance proposed by the \nBasel Committee for conducting a procedure of identification of the global systemically \nimportant banks. The article describes fundamental principles for dealing with the \nnational systemically important banks proposed by the Basel Committee. The author \nhas thoroughly analyzed the methods for identification of the national systemically \nimportant banks in various countries of the world, namely the USA, Canada, Germany, \nSweden, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Denmark, India, and Australia. The \nresearcher has taken into account advantages and disadvantages of the methods for \nidentification of the systemically important banks of various countries. The article \ncontains basic aspects of building the system for regulation of activities of the \nsystemically important banks in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and Canada. \nThe done analysis of the foreign experience related to the identification and \nregulation of the national systemically important banks has enabled to indicate \na list of key decisions regarding the regulation of activities of these banks in \nvarious countries of the world. Concluding the results of analysis of the foreign \nexperience related to the identification and regulation of the national systemically \nimportant banks, the author proposes recommendations on improvement of the \nidentification and regulation of activities of the national systemically important \nbanks in the banking system of Ukraine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".