MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153594052 · doi:10.7202/602102ar

BANK ADVISER : un système interactif multicritère pour l’évaluation financière des entreprises à l’aide des méthodes PROMETHEE

2009· article· fr· W2153594052 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bertrand Mareschal, Jean‐Pierre Brans

Bibliographic record

VenueL Actualité économique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BANK ADVISER est utilisé couramment par une grande banque belge pour l’évaluation financière d’un portefeuille de clients industriels. Le système utilise la méthodologie multicritère développée dans les méthodes PROMETHEE et GAIA. Dans une première section, le cadre d’utilisation de BANK ADVISER est précisé. Le problème général de l’évaluation financière est abordé et une formulation multicritère est proposée, reposant sur un certain nombre de ratios calculés à partir de données de base comptables. L’accent est mis sur les différences et la complémentarité des évaluations absolue et relative d’un client. Les méthodes multicritères PROMETHEE et GAIA sont ensuite brièvement décrites et le concept de banque de référence est introduit afin d’obtenir le positionnement d’un client au sein d’un groupe de clients. La structure du système et son implémentation sur micro-ordinateur sont alors décrites de façon exhaustive.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.163 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL Actualité économiqueSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207