MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892794210

Risks in Large Value Payment Systems

2007· article· en· W2892794210 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sunil Kh, elwal, Dayan, ey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBanking Systems and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentPayment systemBusinessDatabase transactionSystemic riskFinancial marketVulnerability (computing)Human settlementFinancial transactionIntermediaryFinancePayment service providerFinancial intermediaryCommerceFinancial systemEconomicsComputer scienceComputer securityFinancial crisis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Payment system is an integral part of the entire banking system in every country. Payment systems in centrally-planned economies differ greatly from market-driven economies. Almost all market-driven economies depend heavily on latest technology for efficient functioning of payment systems. The same technology is also a source of risks, which are found only in technology oriented payment systems, such as systemic risk. The discussion on LVPS assumes important dimensions due to its direct implications on financial market. The efficient functioning of payment system is necessary for the efficient functioning of the financial sector. Strong and sound payment system is required not only for long term stability of financial system but also for trouble free day-to-day working of settlements. The transaction on the financial market, generate risks for counterparties who undertake them, for the bankers, for the other intermediaries and for the central bank. The risks are greater in the case of LVPS. The disturbances in these settlements can have wider repercussions for the financial system and the economy as a whole. Due to application of technology the time taken for settling the transactions has been drastically reduced increasing to large volumes exposures. The structure of payment system determines the type of risk, who bears the risks and the vulnerability of the system.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Internet Banking and CommerceSame topicBanking Systems and StrategiesFrench-language works237,207