Enhancing and Validating a Framework to Curb Illicit Financial Flows (IFFs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines illicit financial flows (IFFs) perpetuated in financial statements to develop a framework to curb IFFs. IFFs create opacity, impeding economic progress through investment deterrents and financial uncertainty. Through a comprehensive literature review and the synthesis of sets of qualitative propositions, the researchers previously developed a conceptual framework to address IFFs, and the purpose of the present article is to strengthen and validate the framework among stakeholders in the financial and audit sectors. Following a mixed inductive and deductive research approach and a qualitative methodological choice, the researchers conducted interviews among practitioners to enhance the framework, followed by a focus group to validate the framework. IFF challenges that emerged are tax evasion, for example, investments in untraceable offshore accounts, harming the economy, and bitcoins not being subject to regulation everywhere in the world and being used by cryptocurrency criminals to transfer IFFs to nations with lax regulations. Internationally, IFF risks are also determined by geographical position, trade links, and porous borders among countries that emerged as further challenges, calling for entities to execute existing policies, improve tax enforcement methods, apply cross-border coordination, and practice financial reporting transparency aimed at combatting IFF practices. On the strength of these, the industry surveys significantly enhanced the conceptual framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.152 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".