MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052469708 · doi:10.1147/sj.462.0219

Optimized enterprise risk management

2007· article· en· W2052469708 on OpenAlexaff
Carl Abrams, J. von Kanel, Samuel Müller, B. Pfitzmann, S. Ruschka-Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueIBM Systems Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnterprise risk managementRisk managementIT risk managementRisk analysis (engineering)Enterprise planning systemRisk management frameworkProcess managementBusinessDigital firmMaturity (psychological)Project risk managementEnterprise relationship managementRisk management planEnterprise data managementEnterprise softwareProject managementEngineeringSystems engineeringProject management triangleFinanceService (business)Marketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the result of the increasing costs of risk and compliance activities, enterprises are beginning to integrate compliance and risk management into a comprehensive enterprise risk management function and thus proactively address all sorts of risk, including operational risk and the risk of noncompliance. We present the IBM Research enterprise risk management framework, designed to address risk and compliance management in a strategic, integrated, and comprehensive manner. We demonstrate how enterprises evolve along an enterprise-risk-management maturity continuum from a state of mere penalty avoidance through a state of improvement until they finally reach a state of continuous, risk-based transformation. We then explain our high-level model of the enterprise and its environment and describe the central issues, systems, models, and technologies involved. We conclude by presenting the tactical steps necessary to successfully launch enterprise risk management in accordance with our framework.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
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 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

Citations75
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIBM Systems JournalSame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207