Systemic risk prediction based on Savitzky-Golay smoothing and temporal convolutional networks
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><p>Based on the data from January 2007 to December 2021, this paper selects 14 representatives from four levels of the extreme risk of financial institutions, the contagion effect between financial systems, volatility and instability of financial markets, liquidity, and credit risk systemic risk. By constructing a Savitzky-Golay-TCN deep convolutional neural network, the systemic risk indicators of China's financial market are predicted, and their accuracy and reliability are analyzed. The research found that: 1) Savitzky-Golay-TCN deep convolutional neural network has a strong generalization ability, and the prediction effect on all indices is stable. 2) Compared with the three control models (time-series convolutional network (TCN), convolutional neural network (CNN), and long short-term memory (LSTM)), the Savitzky-Golay-TCN deep convolutional neural network has excellent prediction accuracy, and its average prediction accuracy for all indices has increased. 3) Savitzky-Golay-TCN deep convolutional neural network can better monitor financial market changes and effectively predict systemic risk.</p></abstract>
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 | 0.045 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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