MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128761671 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2012.12.010

Measuring liquidity risk in Social Security using VaR technique

2013· article· en· W2128761671 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard, Gholamreza Tizfahmfard

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityComputer scienceSocial securityBusinessEconometricsRisk analysis (engineering)FinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring liquidity risk plays an important role on any business unit especially financial organizations.Social security systems in most countries around the world are responsible to provide necessary requirements in many countries such as health care, pension plans, etc.Therefore, it is necessary to reduce any risk associated with these systems as much as possible.In this paper, we study liquidity risk in Iranian social security using VaR technique.The proposed model of this paper uses historical information for a fiscal year of 2008-2011.We first divide the information of each year into two groups of first and second half and using VaR technique analyzed whether there was any trend change in these two groups.The results of our survey indicate that the mean of VaR in the second half of the year is greater than the first half of the year.Therefore, we can confirm that VaR maintains an increasing trend over the time horizon.We also study the trend in liquidity using regression analysis for each year, separately and the results of our survey confirm that there was an increasing trend in liquidity over time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207