MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Rise and Evolution of the Chief Risk Officer: Enterprise Risk Management at Hydro One

2005· article· en· W2042383214 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tom Aabo, John R. S. Fraser, Betty J. Simkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of applied corporate finance · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsHydro One (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk managementSubsidiaryBusinessEnterprise risk managementOfficerPosition (finance)Delphi methodEconomic capitalFinanceMarket riskAccountingEconomicsMarket economyHuman capitalComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the five-year implementation of enterprise risk management at Hydro One, a Canadian electric utility in a newly deregulated market. Starting with the creation of the position of Chief Risk Officer and the implementation of a pilot risk study involving one of the firm's subsidiaries, the ERM process has made use of a variety of tools and techniques, including the “Delphi Method,” risk trends, risk tolerances, and risk rankings. Among the most tangible benefits of ERM at Hydro One are (1) a better coordinated and more effective process for allocating capital and (2) a favorable reaction to the program by Moody's and Standard & Poor's, which has arguably improved the company's credit rating and lowered its cost of capital. But perhaps equally important is the company's progress in realizing the first principle of its ERM policy—namely, that “risk management is everyone's responsibility, from the Board of Directors to individual employees.” As a result, Hydro One's management feels that the company is much better positioned today to respond to new business developments than it was five years ago.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations122
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of applied corporate financeSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207