Characteristics Pertinent to the Ombudsman’s Offices: Evidence in Banks in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brazilian regulations determined from the 2nd half of 2007, the establishment of the ombudsman’s offices as an organizational component of banks giving them authority to mediate conflicts. The objective of this study is to identify the characteristics pertinent to the ombudsman’s offices of 26 banks operating in Brazil. Parallel to that it is sought to verify whether these characteristics showed significant differences in the analyzed period, from January 2008 to June 2011, and met or exceeded the regulatory forecast. A descriptive study is carried out, one that includes literature review and documentary research, analyzing the content of public documentation regarding the ombudsman’s offices. The non-probabilistic sample was based on the ‘50 Largest Banks’ report of the Central Bank of Brazil, June 2011. The analyses employed 2 items (‘Characteristics of Management’ and ‘Characteristics of Corporate Governance’) and 19 sub-items based on literature review and expert opinion on the items and sub-items. Non parametric tests were employed in the analyses. From the 494 observations on the sub-items, the main results show that the item ‘Characteristics of Management’ has 67.09% of sub-items present, and the item ‘Characteristics of Corporate Governance’ has 70.77% of sub-items present. There were no significant differences between the percentages of sub-items associated with these two items, and among the sub-items present, those which meet the regulatory forecast prevailed. The study can subsidize reflections of academics, regulators, customers, users and other stakeholders in the characterization of the ombudsman’s offices, and can help to understand the influence of regulation on the disclosure of ombudsman’s offices in banks in Brazil.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".