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
Summary The Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA) to operational risk, as described by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision ( ), provides a framework meant to be used by banks for establishing the capital required to be set aside to cover worst‐case operational loss scenarios. The problems raised by an AMA approach are primarily statistical in nature, and many lie at the frontier of statistical research. The aim of this paper is to contribute to one of the more pressing challenges of an AMA, namely that of testing the goodness of fit (GoF) of a distributional family to operational loss data. Our focus is on extending certain classically known tests, such as that of Anderson–Darling, with particular emphasis on the right tails of the distributions. The nature of such GoF tests is examined in detail, and computational efficiency of the procedures is taken into account. We also propose a novel saddlepoint approximation method for assessing the asymptotic null distributions of the test statistics based on the eigenvalues of covariance kernels estimated via a jackknife and influence function‐based approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.051 |
| 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