Cluster Enterprise Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Methodology Based on the Functional-Target Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of the unification of enterprises in the cluster is also associated with high uncertainty and risks. Thus, the development of theoretical approaches and methodological instruments for efficient risk management of enterprises under the conditions of cluster association is an urgent scientific task. The methodology of a comprehensive risk assessment of the cluster enterprise is based on the use of the approach for building a functional-target model of a cluster enterprise, and is reduced to the search for a response to the question: can an event change the value of a providing indicator in such a way that this will lead to a deterioration in the resulting indicator in each enterprise subsystem? Based on the results of forecasting external risks, it was established that the group of state and global risks, in particular, political, territorial and financial, is characterized by significant threats for the next 5 years for the studied cluster enterprises. We proposed and tested a methodology for a comprehensive assessment of the risks of cluster enterprises, based on a functional-target approach, according to which a cluster enterprise as a socio-economic system is considered as a set of three basic subsystems: management, production and financial and economic.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".