Toward Business Integrity Modeling and Analysis Framework for Risk Measurement and Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financialization has contributed to economic growth but has caused scandals, misselling, rogue trading, tax evasion, and market speculation. To a certain extent, it has also created problems in social and economic instability. It is an important aspect of Enterprise Security, Privacy, and Risk (ESPR), particularly in risk research and analysis. In order to minimize the damaging impacts caused by the lack of regulatory compliance, governance, ethical responsibilities, and trust, we propose a Business Integrity Modeling and Analysis (BIMA) framework to unify business integrity with performance using big data predictive analytics and business intelligence. Comprehensive services include modeling risk and asset prices, and consequently, aligning them with business strategies, making our services, according to market trend analysis, both transparent and fair. The BIMA framework uses Monte Carlo simulation, the Black–Scholes–Merton model, and the Heston model for performing financial, operational, and liquidity risk analysis and present outputs in the form of analytics and visualization. Our results and analysis demonstrate supplier bankruptcy modeling, risk pricing, high-frequency pricing simulations, London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) rate simulation, and speculation detection results to provide a variety of critical risk analysis. Our approaches to tackle problems caused by financial services and the operational risk clearly demonstrate that the BIMA framework, as the outputs of our data analytics research, can effectively combine integrity and risk analysis together with overall business performance and can contribute to operational risk research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".