MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W32905514

Truth in Lending Developments in 1987: An Active Year on Several Fronts

2016· article· en· W32905514 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert P. Chamness

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Cancer Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiptLoanEleventhQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessAccountingLawFinancePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The year 1 987 proved to be an active one for Truth in Lending developments, particularly during the final quarter. Congress repeated its penchant for being unable to alter the structure of federal banking law without also amending the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).1 On August 4, Congress enacted the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 (CEBA).2 Section 1204 of the CEBA,3 which was an eleventh-hour floor amendment sponsored by Senator Howard Metzenbaum, requires lenders to include a specific maximum interest rate in their adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loan contracts. As prescribed by the provision, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB or Fed) subsequently issued implementing regulations by adopting a final amendment to regulation Z.4 Meanwhile, on the regulatory front, progress was finally made on the long-awaited uniform disclosure rule. The Federal Reserve Board adopted a final disclosure amendment to regulation Z that requires lenders to provide consumers a new ARM program disclosure, as well as a consumer booklet on loans, prior to the receipt of either a formal application or a non-refundable application fee.5 Concurrently, the Office of the Comptroller of

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Cancer ResearchSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207