Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial crisis which started in 2007 is being continued for several years. In the effect of crisis, there are many debates on its cause and solutions. However, traders of financial products who are known as investors are divided into professional investors and normal investors under Financial Investment Services Provider Act. Normal investors have characters of consumers. These consumers equip characteristics such as weak position in the market, lack of information and professionalism and reliance to professional financier. Then normal investors may belong to consumers who are protected under Constitution Law Article 124. Including financial consumers into subject of consumer protection, this can be one of the methods to confront with financial crisis such as strengthening financial network. Protection of investors under Capital Market and Financial Investment Services Provider Act has critical defect that it was incompetent in its role as protection of individuals’ property and social financial network, due to too much emphasis on contract principle, which was proven during international financial crisis. In order to supplement this weakness, if we adopt the concept of ‘financial consumer protection’, and strengthen the area which is covered by it, this can be the backbone of prevention of transaction of toxic assets which is the evident of failure of financial market which is caused by market failure of individual with lack of information (for example, subprime mortagage situation) or market failure due to cut-throat competition of financial companies. This theory can be proven by the case in Canada where Financial Agency of Canada has limited the transaction of subprime by large banks to financial consumers, was able to avoid the Canada financial crisis. There foreth is paper will suggest on several things as a solution for financial crisis: first, the adoption of concept of financial consumer, second, a demand for supplemental system which concentrates on protection of investors’ assets by applying the concept of financial consumer under Capital Market and Financial Investment Services Provider Act rather than protecting the rights of investors’, third, there is a need to build an exclusive responsible organization for financial consumer protection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.057 |
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".