MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099528661

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS 25 ECONOMIC REVIEW FOURTH QUARTER 1995 Should Bank Reserves Earn

2015· article· en· W7099528661 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal case studies and regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentInterest rateQuarter (Canadian coin)Official cash rateReserve requirementBank rateBank reservesValue (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paying interest on reserves would increase the demand for deposits and thus for reserves. This, in turn, would raise the value of existing reserves, increasing the wealth of those who own bank deposits at the time that interest payments are initiated. The case for payments of interest on re-serves applies not only to the 100 % reserve system, but equally to our present fractional reserve system. Accordingly, even if re-serves are not raised to 100%, Reserve Banks should be required to pay interest on their deposit liabilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1260.050

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal case studies and regulationsFrench-language works237,207