Clues from networks: quantifying relational risk for credit risk evaluation of SMEs
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
Abstract Owing to information asymmetry, evaluating the credit risk of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is difficult. While previous studies evaluating the credit risk of SMEs have mostly focused on intrinsic risk generated by SMEs, our study considers both intrinsic and relational risks generated by neighbor firms’ publicly available risk events. We propose a framework for quantifying relational risk based on publicly available risk events for SMEs’ credit risk evaluation. Our proposed framework quantifies relational risk by weighting the impact of publicly available risk events of each firm in an interfirm network—considering the impact of interfirm network type, risk event type, and time dependence of risk events—and combines the relational risk score with financial and demographic features to evaluate SMEs credit risk. Our results reveal that relational risk score significantly improves both discrimination and granting performances of credit risk evaluation of SMEs, providing valuable managerial and practical implications for financial institutions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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