Preliminary and Incomplete: 5-11-00 (Do not quote without permission)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
nments differ in notable ways: in economic geography, in regulatory architecture, in patterns of interbank competition, and in governmental organization. Although not experimentally controlled, such differences can be measured and interpreted as treatments applied to "experimental" and "control" groups. By analyzing the effects of putative policy treatments, we hope to assemble a body of tested empirical evidence about how variations in a country's competitive and regulatory structure affect bank risk and return. Historically, banking-policy environments in the selected countries differed in four important ways. First, the U.K. had world-class banks and a strong central bank throughout the period of observation. The Canadian and U.S. banking and regulatory environments lag the U.K. in these respects. Second, until relatively recently, the Bank of England tolerated collusive activity and disciplined banks through clubbish moral suasion and informal contacts. Third, efforts to divide reg
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it