The Use of Financial Derivatives in Emerging Market Economies: An Empirical Evidence from Bosnia and Herzegovina's Non-Financial Firms
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
This paper discusses development of financial derivatives markets in emerging market economies, focusing on the use of financial derivatives in risk management purposes of non-financial firms in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For achieving the research goals authors collected data on the derivatives market structure and types of derivative instrument traded, focusing commercial banks, because of the authors’ prior knowledge of the derivatives market. Additionally, in order to assess the current state and development perspectives of derivatives usage by the non-financial firms, authors conducted a research on the random sample of non-financial firms, using data from the Foreign Trade Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as the information from lists of derivatives users-clients provided by some banks of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The research shows that derivatives market in the country exists as an over-the-counter market, where banks play dominant role and offer different types of derivative instruments. Three types of derivatives are being offered: currency forwards, currency swaps, and interest rate forwards. The main reason for the poor offer is low demand, lack of non-financial firms’ knowledge about benefits of derivatives, and low number of business operations on the global markets by the non-financial firms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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