MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk Assessment for Canadian Commercial Banks

2023· article· en· W4386641253 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yumeizhu Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Economics Management and Political Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessProfitability indexFinancial risk managementLiquidity riskRisk managementMarket riskCredit riskMarket liquidityFinanceInterest rateOperational riskFinancial systemActuarial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More and more individuals, businesses, and financial institutions are realizing the importance of risk management, and it is also an integral part of the development process for commercial banks. Most people do not consider the significant risks that banks face when conducting transactions and that this is a key factor in the survival of the bank. Therefore, this paper examines how Canadian commercial banks manage risks and explores the objective causes of increased risk by collecting annual data from Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) and comparing and analyzing it with the data of previous years. The comparison of selected data continues with an analysis of the ability of commercial banks to manage risks and how risks affect the profitability of the bank. The study finds that liquidity risk is positively correlated with the bank's profitability and performance, while market risk and credit risk have a negative correlation with the bank's performance. External factors such as inflation, interest rate hike, and COVID-19 also challenges the bank with increased risk. TD has a well-developed regulatory system and countermeasures, and the bank has a high level of risk management and response capabilities.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Economics Management and Political SciencesSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207