MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W328711132

Information Brief on International Risk Management Standards

2005· article· en· W328711132 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marc Saner

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk managementDirectiveGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceBusinessPublic administrationAccountingFinanceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this brief is to support the discussion on risk management within the current development of a Government of Canada Directive on Regulating. It presents some of the most interesting aspects of key international standards – aspects that are of interest to Canada because they are novel, different from Canadian traditions, or because they represent particularly well-developed international approaches to risk management systems. Risk management is a discipline that has developed rapidly in recent years and this development is truly international. Some of the most important standards and concepts have come from Australia and New Zealand (AUS/NZ), the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). I have selected these three jurisdictions as the most promising sources of ideas to support the discussion in Canada.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207