MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7114898291 · doi:10.3138/9781487569303

The Evolution and Future of Money in Canada: Implications for the Digital Age, Legal and Regulatory Perspective

2025· article· W7114898291 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)LegislaturePrivate sectorPerspective (graphical)PaymentEmerging technologiesFinancial services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of money in Canada has evolved to adapt to global technological and institutional changes. In this broad context this book explores the impact of emerging digital technologies on how society and government regulators think about money. The Evolution and Future of Money in Canada provides readers a better understanding of the evolving monetary regime in Canada from its early inception to the current emerging digital age. Distinguished legal professor and lawyer Benjamin Geva builds on his expertise in the financial sector to provide a timely study of the Canadian economy. He looks at digital assets such as value-referenced crypto-assets as a potential source of private money, the impact of digital assets on payment systems, and the role of government and central banks in shaping monetary regulations in response to the emergence of digital assets. The Evolution and Future of Money in Canada endeavours to examine Canada’s history and extrapolate insights into our collective future. The book is designed to inform policy development and analysis related to the ongoing financial sector legislative review focused on the digitalization of money. Geva builds on voluminous literature – from Canada and elsewhere – and yet fills a gap in existing research by integrating a legal perspective into a broad policy analysis addressing institutional and technological evolution. Ultimately, this book aims to play an essential role in guiding our future financial policies and legal principles, doctrines, and rules.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0240.021
Scholarly communication0.0170.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→