MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RISK-MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES: INTERNATIONAL ASPECT

2019· article· en· W4319435893 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maryna M. Dielini

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Economics Sustainability Leadership and Innovation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBanking, Crisis Management, COVID-19 Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk managementGovernment (linguistics)Order (exchange)BusinessRisk assessmentPublic managementPolitical scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Public administrationEconomicsFinanceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines examples of risk management at the governmental level. The author explored the developed countries of the world, namely the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, where government risk management is represented sufficiently well. This made it possible to determine the directions for the development of risk management in Ukraine at the national level. Examples of world rankings are also provided to assess the reliability of cooperation with different countries around the world by their level of risk and in order to formulate their own risk management policy based on the results of the rating.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness Economics Sustainability Leadership and InnovationSame topicBanking, Crisis Management, COVID-19 ImpactFrench-language works237,207