MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391012202 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17010038

Decentralized Data and Artificial Intelligence Orchestration for Transparent and Efficient Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Trade Financing

2024· article· en· W4391012202 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marjan Alirezaie, William Hoffman, Paria Zabihi, Hossein Rahnama, Alex Pentland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersUniversity of WashingtonTD Bank
KeywordsTrade financeOrchestrationTransparency (behavior)CredibilityPredictabilitySupply chainCash flowBusinessFinanceComputer scienceEconomicsMarketingPublic financeComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complexities arising from disparate data sources, conflicting contracts, residency requirements, and the demand for multiple AI models in trade finance supply chains have hindered small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with limited resources from harnessing the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities, which could otherwise enhance their business efficiency and predictability. This paper introduces a decentralized AI orchestration framework that prioritizes transparency and explainability, offering valuable insights to funders, such as banks, and aiding them in overcoming the challenges associated with assessing SMEs’ financial credibility. By utilizing an orchestration technique involving symbolic reasoners, language models, and data-driven predictive tools, the framework empowers funders to make more informed decisions regarding cash flow prediction, finance rate optimization, and ecosystem risk assessment, ultimately facilitating improved access to pre-shipment trade finance for SMEs and enhancing overall supply chain operations.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207