MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242060137 · doi:10.1504/ijcm.2018.094479

Connectivity and closeness among international financial institutions: a network theory perspective

2018· article· en· W4242060137 on OpenAlexaff
Thierry Warin, William Sanger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on OrganizationsPolytechnique MontréalHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBetweenness centralityClosenessFinancial networksMultinational corporationCentralitySystemic riskNetwork theorySample (material)Perspective (graphical)BusinessComplex networkFinancial riskFinancial economicsEconomicsFinanceFinancial crisisComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on connectivity and closeness between financial institutions. Financial institutions are a subset of multinational corporations and play an important role in our modern economies. By studying connectivity and closeness, this article proposes a network theory approach to the notion of systemic risk. Using network theory, we propose to look at potential networks between financial institutions through their boards of directors. Measures of centrality (degree, closeness, betweenness, eigenvalue) and force-directed networks are provided for each country. We built a large sample (43,399 individuals; 2,209 institutions) across 52 countries using Bureau van Dijk's database. We find corporate interlocks showing - to some degree - the level of concentration within the financial system. The main contribution of this article is to show some evidence of small-world properties of the international financial system; the ramifications of this question could be critical, notably in terms of systemic risk.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.322 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative ManagementSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207