MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084077888 · doi:10.1108/09657960110696069

The risk of risk

2001· article· en· W2084077888 on OpenAlexaff
Robert G. Eccles, Robert H. Herz, Mary Keegan, David Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueBalance Sheet · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk managementCompetitor analysisDilemmaIT riskFinancial risk managementBusinessActuarial scienceMarket riskEarningsIT risk managementOperational riskRisk analysis (engineering)Enterprise risk managementRisk assessmentAccountingEconomicsManagementMarketingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is an exclusive extract from The ValueReporting Revolution: Moving Beyond the Earnings Game, a new book published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and written by four senior PricewaterhouseCoopers experts. In this extract they discuss the dilemma of risk management and risk reporting. They argue that there are difficulties in disclosing risk on the grounds that it causes problems with competitors and investors alike. There is also a lack of consensus of how market risk should be measured. They assess how to quantify operational risk and conclude that the gap between improving risk management techniques and risk disclosures needs to be closed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBalance SheetSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207