MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188240400 · doi:10.52399/001c.27011

Securitisation, Transparency and Failure Risk

2011· article· en· W3188240400 on OpenAlex
Patricia C. O’Brien

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Finance & Governance Review/Accounting finance & governance review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Market liquidityBusinessPoolingAccountingFinancial crisisFinancial systemFinanceEconomicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Banks and other financial companies use securitisation to redistribute risk and increase liquidity by pooling and selling assets. This paper reviews the typical set-up of a securitisation and its potential benefits and risks, including the tendency to concentrate risk in positions retained by the sponsor. The paper illustrates how the accounting for these transactions facilitates this risk concentration and impedes transparency. It discusses some academic evidence on securitisations and the role these complex transactions played in the recent financial crisis and in Ireland’s banking sector afterwards.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.190 · 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