MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123587043 · doi:10.1287/moor.1120.0577

External Risk Measures and Basel Accords

2013· article· en· W3123587043 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Steven Kou, Xianhua Peng, C. C. Heyde

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyGeorgia State UniversityUniversity of AlbertaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBasel IIOperational riskDynamic risk measureRisk measureRisk-weighted assetCoherent risk measureCapital requirementMathematicsRisk-adjusted return on capitalRobustness (evolution)Actuarial scienceMeasure (data warehouse)EconometricsRisk analysis (engineering)Risk managementValue at riskEconomicsComputer scienceBusinessFinanceData miningMicroeconomicsProfit (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Choosing a proper external risk measure is of great regulatory importance, as exemplified in the Basel II and Basel III Accords, which use value-at-risk with scenario analysis as the risk measures for setting capital requirements. We argue that a good external risk measure should be robust with respect to model misspecification and small changes in the data. A new class of data-based risk measures called natural risk statistics is proposed to incorporate robustness. Natural risk statistics are characterized by a new set of axioms. They include the Basel II and III risk measures and a subclass of robust risk measures as special cases; therefore, they provide a theoretical framework for understanding and, if necessary, extending the Basel Accords.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations169
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics of Operations ResearchSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207