Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the stage of maturity in the life cycle of an international currency, the challenge is: What should the issuing government do with its currency power? The options are exploitation, evasion, or enjoyment. Should the issuer seek to capitalize on the advantages offered by the newfound power resource? Should it look for some way to escape potential risks of currency internationalization? Or should it, in a passive mode, simply accept the benefits of internationalization as they come? Once again, a brief review of recent history illustrates the importance of geopolitical ambition – its presence or absence – in determining which option will be chosen. Most countries that have seen their money rise to the upper ranks of the global monetary hierarchy, just below America’s top-ranked dollar, have settled for the enjoyment option, eschewing the attractions of currency power. These include today’s euro and yen, Britain’s pound, the Swiss franc, and the Canadian and Australian dollars. For the United States by contrast, deeply enmeshed in geopolitics, passive currency statecraft is not a natural option. The chapter explains and evaluates the many ways that the United States has exploited its currency power, both directly and indirectly.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.023 |
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".