MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410118073 · doi:10.17132/2693-3179.1615

Canada: Canadian Commercial Bank Emergency Liquidity Program, 1985

2025· preprint· en· W4410118073 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Keanie, L eacute o Brougher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Crises · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityBusinessCommercial bankFinancial systemFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 1985, the Canadian Commercial Bank (CCB)-Canada's 10th largest bank, with CAD 2.9 billion in assets-reported to the Office of the Inspector General of Banks (OIGB) and the Bank of Canada (BoC) that CCB would not survive owing to large losses on its United States energy loans portfolio. In response, the BoC assembled an emergency CAD 255 million rescue package, secured through contributions from a consortium composed of the federal government, the provincial government of Alberta, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Canada's six largest banks. Despite the BoC's reassurances, including a public announcement promising virtually unlimited liquidity support, confidence in CCB continued to decline. By the time the bank failed, it depended on BoC support for approximately 65% of its total outstanding deposits, totaling CAD 1.3 billion. In the summer of 1985, as part of a full examination of CCB's loan book, authorities uncovered a significant number of additional impaired loans, confirming that the bank was deeply insolvent. This insolvency prompted the OIGB to declare the CCB nonviable on September 1, 1985, marking Canada's first bank failure in 62 years. The collapse of CCB triggered forced acquisitions of other significant regional banks and led to substantial regulatory reforms in Canada's financial sector.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Financial CrisesSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207