MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399314514 · doi:10.7202/1105291ar

ENTERPRISE-WIDE RISK MANAGEMENT

2000· article· en· W4399314514 on OpenAlexaff
David W. Dougherty

Bibliographic record

VenueAssurances : · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsRoyal Bank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessRisk managementRisk analysis (engineering)Finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to provide an assessment of the impact of Enterprise-wide Risk Management (ERM) on the trading activities of financial institutions, with an emphasis on derivatives. This paper is divided into three parts. The first part looks at the evolution of ERM in terms of its impact on the culture of the organization, risk coverage, measurement methodologies, technology and performance measurement. The second part looks at the application of ERM as it relates to individual risk types such as market, credit, and business risks. The paper concludes with an overview of the key factors that are critical to the success of an ERM program.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssurances :Same topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207