MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136253028

The Monetary and Financial Powers of States: Theory, Dataset, and Observations on the Trajectory of American Dominance

2019· article· en· W3136253028 on OpenAlexaff
Leslie Elliott Armijo, Daniel C. Tirone, Hyoung‐kyu Chey

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil War Book Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominance (genetics)HegemonyPoliticsCurrencySovereigntyEconomicsState (computer science)CreditorFinanceInternational financePolitical scienceInternational economicsMacroeconomicsDebtLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project transforms international financial statistics into a form useful for global political analysis. The authors first theorise four distinct faces of a sovereign state’s monetary and financial power resources: its international Creditor, Network, Currency, and Governance Capabilities. Each of these capabilities implies resources that incumbent political leaders potentially may employ to persuade, induce, or coerce others in pursuit of their larger foreign policy goals. They thus provide the means of international financial statecraft. The paper next summarises a new dataset, the Global Monetary and Financial Profiles of States (GMFPS), which creates measures for each of these concepts. Covering 180 countries from 1995–2013, the GMFPS dataset reports each state’s annual shares of global totals for 25 indicators and 5 composites, each corresponding to a national financial characteristic that leaders may choose to manipulate politically – albeit not without paying some costs, economic and/or political. The paper concludes with an initial analysis of global trends, which tend to confirm the slow relative decline of the reigning financial hegemon, the United States. The data also provide suggestive evidence of a typical financial life-cycle for major states, although one that is voluntaristic, not inevitable.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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 venueCivil War Book ReviewSame topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207