MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254639814 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v21i9.2684

Enterprise Risk Management at the State University of New York: A Benchmark for Saudi Universities

2019· article· en· W4254639814 on OpenAlex

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 Applied Business and Economics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Enterprise risk managementBusinessRisk managementVariety (cybernetics)Process (computing)InstitutionFinancial institutionCompliance (psychology)State (computer science)Process managementFace (sociological concept)Risk analysis (engineering)FinanceComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Universities face constantly a variety of risks, including strategic, financial, operational, compliance, and reputational risks. To help ensure goals and objectives are met, universities must manage these risks. While some organizations manage risk using an informal process, others have a formalized structured approach. Enterprise Risk Management, ERM, is a formal and continuous process that is designed to identify, assess, prioritize, and manage all risks and opportunities for an institution. The study proposes the use of ERM processes as used in the State University of New York as a benchmark or a reference for Saudi Universities.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.158 · 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