Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Assess an Enterprise’s Financial Security?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study contributes to the literature on financial security by highlighting the relevance of the perceptions and resulting professional judgment of stakeholders. Assessing a company’s financial security using only economic indicators—as suggested in the existing literature—would be inaccurate when undertaking a comprehensive study of financial security. Specifically, indices and indicators based on financial or managerial reporting calculated at any particular point in time, provide only a superficial understanding—and may even distort the overall picture. It has also been suggested that expert assessment is the most objective method, although it has disadvantages related to individual cognitive limitations. These limitations are not particular to artificial intelligence, which could assess an enterprise’s financial security in a less biased way. However, by only imitating human behavior, it is not able to perceive and evaluate with intuition the dynamics of the company’s development and holistically assess the financial condition—despite the possibility of learning and forecasting—because artificial intelligence is not able to think and predict, which, in an enterprise, is the most important skill of a manager. Therefore, the risk of developing artificial intelligence to assess a firm’s financial security lies in a biased assessment of the enterprise’s activities in general—and its financial security in particular.
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 | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".