The determinants of investment fraud: A machine learning and artificial intelligence approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investment fraud continues to be a severe problem in the Canadian securities industry. This paper aims to employ machine learning algorithms and artificial neural networks (ANN) to predict investment in Canada. Data for this study comes from cases heard by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) between June 2008 and December 2019. In total, 406 cases were collected and coded for further analysis. After data cleaning and pre-processing, a total of 385 cases were coded for further analysis. The machine learning algorithms and artificial neural networks were able to predict investment fraud with very good results. In terms of standardized coefficient, the top five features in predicting fraud are offender experience, retired investors, the amount of money lost, the amount of money invested, and the investors' net worth. Machine learning and artificial intelligence have a pivotal role in regulation because they can identify the risks associated with fraud by learning from the data they ingest to survey past practices and come up with the best possible responses to predict fraud. If used correctly, machine learning in the form of regulatory technology can equip regulators with the tools to take corrective actions and make compliance more efficient to safeguard the markets and protect investors from unethical investment advisors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it