MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine Learning-based Predictive Analytics for Financial Planning and Budgeting in ERP Systems

2024· article· en· W4400911728 on OpenAlexaff
S. Sharma, Prithu Sarkar, B Rajalakshmi, Sorabh Lakhanpal, Ippa Sumalatha, Amit Joshi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePredictive analyticsAnalyticsEnterprise resource planningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningFinanceData scienceKnowledge managementBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A financial budget is a crucial component of managing accounts and a crucial aspect of organization administration. The financial accounts section provides the foundation for the budget, and the invoices, accounts, and additional data found in the financial accounts section serve as the foundation of the financial planning and budgeting section's implementation data. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) approaches are revolutionizing business processes through the incorporation of AI features into conventional ERP systems. This connection offers businesses remarkable efficiency benefits and improved user interfaces while revolutionizing accessibility and development. Hence this research examines the machine learning (ML) based predictive analysis for financial planning and budgeting in ERP systems. In this research, the PSO-SVM technique was analyzed using the 3 classification requirements of MAE, MRE, and RMSE. It was additionally evaluated under various evaluation periods of the BP and GA-SVM techniques throughout the precise timeframe. The PSO-SVM technique suggested in this study has a comparative time complexity of 0.392, according to the test data. In terms of relative time-based difficulty, it operates better. The empirical findings demonstrate the substantial advantage of the ML prediction analysis in terms of prediction stability and accuracy. The suggested approach can assist businesses in allocating their materials more scientifically, maximizing their advantages, and organizing their finite materials.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207