MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217050785 · doi:10.54648/cola2021066

Digital euro and ECB powers

2021· article· en· W3217050785 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommon Market Law Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)CashEconomicsLaw and economicsPolitical scienceBusinessFinanceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of cash in the euro area is declining. Accordingly, the European Central Bank is exploring options for the design of a digital euro as a form of central bank money available to the public. This article addresses the key question of whether the Eurosystem is empowered to issue a digital euro and, if so, in what form. Based on a historical, teleological, and systematic interpretation, it argues that Article 128(1) TFEU serves as both a source of competence for the Eurosystem to issue a digital euro and a limitation to that competence. The Eurosystem’s powers are necessarily exclusive and must prevail over the remaining competence of Member States to issue tangible coins on the basis of Article 128(2) TFEU. The article also addresses whether a digital euro would and should possess legal tender status, referring to recent case law in the field.

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.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.192 · 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