MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

International Currency Conflict in the Contemporary World Monetary System

2020· article· en· W3006040367 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
М. Жариков

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Business and Economics Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrencyConstructiveEconomicsInternational economicsReserve currencyBusinessInternational tradeMonetary economicsForeign exchange risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article addresses international currency conflicts. The research has found that currency conflict has extensive economic effects, especially on the United States and the weak peripheral countries of the Eurozone, as well as Canada, and some other countries that do not intervene in the currency markets. The author has revealed that these developments and ill-effects of global currency manipulation stem from a gaping hole in the international economic architecture. The theoretical significance of the article’s outcomes is that the most fundamental flaw in the entire global regime encompasses both the monetary and trading systems, and indicates a massive failure of international cooperation. The practical significance of the paper is that it has outlaid a feasible set of effective systemic reforms that can be adopted to counter the objectionable practices today and deter them in the future. The author concludes that it is very much in the interest of all the world’s countries to initiate a multilateral effort to work out a constructive solution to a significant international and systemic problem.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Business and Economics StudiesSame topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207