Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie les mesures déployées par les acteurs de la Banque centrale européenne (BCE) au titre de leur fonction de supervision des banques de la zone euro dans le cadre de la mise en place de l’Union bancaire en 2014. Il s’intéresse à la façon dont la mise en œuvre juridique du concept de « stabilité financière », qui justifie les actions de la BCE pour préserver les finances publiques des États membres, est investi de significations différentes par les acteurs publics et privés de la régulation financière internationale (banquiers, économistes, responsables d’autorités nationales de supervision). Des études de controverses relatives à l’usage de différents instruments de supervision mobilisés par la BCE au sein d’arènes expertes, allant de débats académiques jusqu’au Comité de Bâle, permettent de saisir des problématisations concurrentes des moyens assurant la « stabilité financière », ainsi que la façon dont se négocient les compétences de la BCE à agir sur les banques de la zone euro.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".