Gobernanza y supervisión de los mercados financieros internacionales tras la crisis de 2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existe un consenso amplio en torno a la necesidad de mejorar el marco institucional en el que operan los mercados financieros en todo el mundo, reforzando la regulacion y supervision prudencial y sus practicas contables; de adoptar estandares internacionales minimos en estas areas; y de contar con codigos de conducta relativos a la politica fiscal, monetaria y financiera, y con principios adecuados de gobernabilidad empresarial, perfeccionando la informacion que se suministra a los agentes de los mercados financieros. Hoy la presencia de una red de proteccion gubernamental hace necesaria su regulacion. Precisamente una de las funciones de las autoridades publicas es salvaguardar la estabilidad financiera, necesaria para el equilibrio economico general, y por ello las entidades financieras deben estar sometidas a mayores controles prudenciales y vigilancia que otro tipo de entidades, sobre todo en lo que concierne a la existencia de un nivel de capital acorde con sus riesgos . En este contexto es previsible que en los proximos anos la liquidez sea mas ajustada, pero no lo bastante como para asfixiar al nuevo sistema financiero en la sombra hasta hacerlo desaparecer. El Reglamento (CE) no 1060, de 16 de septiembre de 2009, aunque no contenta a todos por su complejidad y excesivo burocratismo, supone un nuevo paso en la supervision del riesgo financiero.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".