MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001802441

Electronic Disclosure and Financial Knowledge Management.

2004· article· en· W3001802441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jerome Yen, Percy Yuen, Belinna Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBanking Systems and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceXMLXML frameworkEfficient XML InterchangeDocument Structure DescriptionXML validationWorld Wide WebKnowledge managementDatabase
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we report the benefits of using eXtended Markup Language (XML) to support financial knowledge management, which include indexing, organizing, association generation, cross-referencing, and retrieval of financial information to support the generation of knowledge. The current searching engines cannot provide sufficient performance, such as, recall, precision, extensibility, etc, to support users of financial information. XML is able to partially solve such problem by providing tags to create structures. XML provides a vendor-neutral approach to structure and organize contents. XML authors are allowed to create arbitrary tags to describe the format or structure of data, rather than restricted to a specific number of tags given in the specification of HTML. A prototype of XML-based ELectronic Financial Filing System (ELFFS-XML) has been developed to illustrate how to apply XML to model and add value to traditional HTML-based financial information by cross-linking related information from different data sources, which is an important step in moving from traditional information management to knowledge management. We compared the functionality of XML-based ELFFS with the original HTML-based ELFFS and SEDAR, an electronic filing system used in Canada, and recommended some directions for future development of similar electronic filing systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicBanking Systems and StrategiesFrench-language works237,207