MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229369793 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15050215

Non-Fungible Token: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda

2022· review· en· W4229369793 on OpenAlex
Hong Bao, David Roubaud

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsPopularitySystematic reviewAsset (computer security)Security tokenBusinessMarketingData scienceComputer sciencePolitical sciencePsychologyComputer securityMEDLINESocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The popularity of the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) has risen rapidly since 2020, becoming one of the most popular applications in the Fintech field. However, there has so far been no attempt to perform a systematic review in this new area. Considering the items of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), this paper conducts a systematic review of the research work on NFT, published in journals indexed at the Web of Science and ScienceDirect until April 2022. The results reveal that there are 13 published articles in the targeted journals and they are mainly focused on the asset pricing area. The research gaps identified in the literature also can be the opportunity for future study. Thus, we lay down the research agenda for the future in several important but unanswered fields related to asset pricing, tokenomics, and risk and regulation.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.263 · 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