Survival Analysis of Bank Note Circulation: Fitness, Network Structure, and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The efficient distribution of bank notes is a first-order responsibility of central banks. The authors study the distribution patterns of bank notes with an administrative dataset from the Bank of Canada’s Currency Inventory Management Strategy. The single note inspection procedure generates a sample of 900 million bank notes in which the authors can trace the length of the stay of a bank note in the market. The authors define the duration of the bank note circulation cycle as beginning on the date the bank note is first shipped by the Bank of Canada to a financial institution and ending when it is returned to the Bank of Canada. In addition, the authors provide information regarding where the bank note is shipped and later received, as well as the physical fitness of the bank note upon return to the Bank of Canada’s distribution centers. K–prototype clustering classifies bank notes into types. A hazard model estimates the duration of bank note circulation cycles based on their clusters and characteristics. An adaptive elastic net provides an algorithm for dimension reduction. It is found that while the distribution of the duration is affected by fitness measures, their effects are negligible when compared with the influence exerted by the clusters related to bank note denominations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".