MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133358940 · doi:10.1504/ijram.2012.051261

The effect of the financial crisis on enterprise risk management disclosures

2012· article· en· W2133358940 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Maingot, Tony K. Quon, Daniel Zéghal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Risk Assessment and Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessRisk managementFinancial risk managementFinancial crisisEnterprise risk managementAccountingCredit riskFinanceRisk assessmentFinancial systemEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of the financial crisis on enterprise risk management (ERM) disclosures was examined through a content analysis of the 2007 and 2008 annual reports of Canadian corporations listed on the S&P TSX composite index. Fourteen types of risk were tracked and categorised by level of risk exposure, risk consequence and risk management disclosures. The total number of risk disclosures increased by 3.6% from 2007 to 2008. Changes in the disclosed levels of risk increased even less. While the levels of risk exposure increased the most for credit risk, only economic and credit risks showed more than minor increases in the disclosure of risk consequences. Overall, the 2008 financial crisis has not had a major impact on risk disclosures by non-financial Canadian corporations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Risk Assessment and ManagementSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207