A global perspective on the use of derivatives for corporate risk management decisions
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
Notes the “spectacular” growth of derivatives over the last 20 years and reviews previous research on the risk management policies and practices of corporations. Reports a survey of leading, non‐financial Canadian firms and compares it with previous studies. Shows the differences between respondents using/not using derivatives, the proportions of different types of treasury organization, the importance attached to treasury benchmarking and the integration of risk management policy with strategic plans. Finds that Canada uses derivatives more than Europe or the USA; that most Canadian and European treasuries operate as cost or service centres but are not benchmarked; that although most Canadian and European companies have written risk management policies, these are not integrated with financial/operating plans; that US risk managers are more likely to take positions reflecting their market views; and that in all the countries covered derivative users are larger than non‐users. Believes that most risk management programmes “remain in an introductory stage”.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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