MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400980569 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17080321

Challenges for Customs Risk Management Today: A Literature Review

2024· review· en· W4400980569 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBorder Security and International Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk managementBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes and uncertainty in the customs operating environment and the growth of trade and travel volumes have affected how customs administrations manage and approach their tasks. As a result of technological development, the role of customs in border control has changed dramatically. Thus, the massive volume of goods, the way they are traded worldwide, and the speed of such transactions create additional fiscal, security, financial, and safety risks, affecting the resources available to customs services. The current geopolitical situation has significantly impacted the role of customs services. The topic is relevant to simultaneously assure both the quality of the services provided by the customs and compliance with the requirements set in the framework of limited resources. This study focuses on customs risk management (CRM) issues. It acknowledges that the customs services must continuously improve their operational methods, including promoting a more structured, integrated, and systematic way to manage customs risks. Based on the literature review, we examine the CRM-related challenges and how scholars address them in the scientific literature. This study aims to identify and analyse the contemporary challenges in CRM from its effectiveness point of view. We employ a systematic literature review, searching in most recognised databases and covering the period of 2005–2024. We follow this with a qualitative content analysis and synthesis, summarising and discussing the study results. We identify and discuss relevant key factors contributing to effective CRM. Finally, we conclude with the implications of the findings for CRM practice and policy, as well as with various potential developments in CRM that we suggest for further work.

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 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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.323 · 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