Digital development of complementary currency markets: legislative aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the research. The legal aspect requires a clear understanding, and can be considered one of the determining factors of the success in realizing complementary currency (CC) projects, because many of them have a lot questions in the legislative framework. In this regard, the author finds it expedient to find out to what extent some countries are more sympathetic to such currency initiatives than others. To this end, the author confines himself to a relatively representative sample of five countries—France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy and Russia—in terms of the degree of liberality to the СС. The main measure for selecting countries were the degree of popularity of the СС-projects in the countries and the availability of the necessary information. In the context of the current paradigm of digitalization of financial markets in each country, the author assessed the achieved level of «digitization» of the projects under study. Results. As a result of the conducted research, the author comes to the conclusion that there are no separate laws concerning СС projects in the system of legislations of different countries. It is possible to determine the position of a country in this area only by examining the sub-items of currency legislation, securities laws, as well as laws related to banking activities. At the same time, in countries that are liberal to СС projects, there are separate communities that support such initiatives and contribute to their emergence and development, while regulating their appeal.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".