MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281987235 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15060265

Banking Risks in the Asset and Liability Management System

2022· article· en· W4281987235 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liubov Lysiak, Ю. В. Масюк, Anatolii Chynchyk, Olena Yudina, Oleksandr Olshanskiy, Valentyna Shevchenko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance sheetBasel IIRisk managementBusinessCurrencyLiabilityCredit riskProfit (economics)Financial risk managementActuarial scienceFinanceFinancial systemEconomicsCapital requirementMonetary economicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Banking risk management is considered weak compared to rapid changes in financial markets. In light of the recent global financial crisis, banking risk management has become a significant concern of banking regulators and government agencies. This work aims to build a model for assessing banking risks. The primary study method is economic–mathematical modeling based on the standardized model of the Basel Committee for Operational Risk Management, the modified CAPM model, and the model developed by Shapiro and Cornell for currency risk management. The information base was the financial statements of Bank Credit Agricole (Poland). As a result, an economic–mathematical model is built, which is the optimal combination of operational, currency, and credit risk management models. This model calculates the optimal values of bank balance sheet items, which allows for making the right management decisions. It allowed adjusting the value of the bank profit by 3.6 million US dollars. In conclusion, considering the results of banking risk modeling, the need to build a strategy for the bank’s development is determined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207