Against the Grain: The Unusual Case of Saskatchewan's Credit Union Deposit Insurance Scheme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"In this paper, I test the proposition that Saskatchewan’s deposit insurance scheme embodied until recently many of the features that Ostrum identified as key to the successful if seemingly improbable management of a common pool natural resource. Drawing on an initial review of archival material, published accounts and official documents, I propose that Saskatchewan’s scheme represents a socially-determined common good along the lines of the arguments found in Perilleux and Nyssens (2017), who show that co-operative financial institutions can be understood as human-made commons. That said, my research suggests that this deposit insurance scheme and its common-pool nature owed at least as much to government actions as it did to the credit unions that operated and mostly governed the scheme. Further, if Saskatchewan’s insurance scheme can be said to have evolved to a point where it more or less conformed to Ostrum’s design principles, then this may have some important implications for anticipating the consequences of what could happen as the deposit insurer gradually unwinds some of these design features, a situation that now seems to be happening."
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".