MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018547260 · doi:10.3917/rai.048.0103

The Ambition of Credit Scoring: Forecasting Credit Failure

2012· article· fr· W2018547260 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanne Lazarus

Bibliographic record

VenueRaisons politiques · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Cet article compare les techniques d'octroi de crédit française et étatsunienne à travers l'utilisation du scoring, technique statistique mesurant le risque de non remboursement. Les scores français sont multiples et internes aux banques alors que le score étatsunien est unique et public, il est donc à l'origine d'un marché qui n'existe pas en France. Se fondant sur la distinction entre « monde » et « réalité » établie par Luc Boltanski, nous y montrons que le scoring, en particulier dans sa forme étatsunienne, incorpore les temporalités passées, présentes et futures, et est une tentative de supprimer l'événement et faire disparaître l'expérience ressentie par les emprunteurs défaillants, ou non.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRaisons politiquesSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207