MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107404495 · doi:10.5430/afr.v4n1p54

International Regulatory Revelations of the Shadow Banking

2014· article· en· W2107404495 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ping Han

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadow (psychology)AuditAccountingBusinessEnlightenmentEuropean unionJoint auditChinaFinanceEconomicsInternal auditEconomic policyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the scale of shadow banking in China expands rapidly, which has great impact on the traditional commercial banks and the national economy. This also attracts attentions of policymakers and academic researchers. This paper discusses concept of shadow banking and, summarizes the main classification, composition and risks of shadow banking. Then, the paper compares regulations of shadow banking in the United States, Britain and European Union. Finally proposes some enlightenment from the shadow banking international regulatory practice. variables such as the auditor tenure effects and auditee risk which have been found to have an inconclusive relationship with the amount of external audit fees in prior studies. However, the auditee size seems to have been the key determinant of external audit fees. Furthermore, financial risk is found to be negatively and significantly associated with the level of external audit fees. On other side, empirical results found that the audit tenure has no significant relationship with audit fees. Finally, the current study is unique because it is the first to empirically examine factors impacting the level of audit fees in Jordan for a total of three years; it revisits the audit fee literature and highlights the important determinants that affect audit fees.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207