MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401545639 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17080352

Bibliometric Analysis of the Machine Learning Applications in Fraud Detection on Crowdfunding Platforms

2024· article· en· W4401545639 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Luis F. Cardona, Jaime Alberto Guzmán Luna, Jaime A. Restrepo-Carmona

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Nacional de Colombia
KeywordsComputer scienceData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crowdfunding platforms are important for startups, since they offer diverse financing options, market validation, and promotional opportunities through an investor community. These platforms provide detailed company information, aiding informed investment decisions within a regulated and secure environment. Machine learning (ML) techniques are important in analyzing large data sets, detecting anomalies and fraud, and enhancing decision-making and business strategies. A systematic review employed PRISMA guidelines, which studied how ML improves fraud detection on digital crowdfunding platforms. The analysis includes English-language studies from peer-reviewed journals published between 2018 and 2023 to analyze the pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic. The findings indicate that ML techniques such as Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and Artificial Neural Networks significantly enhance the predictive accuracy and utility of tax planning for startups considering equity crowdfunding. The United States, Germany, Canada, Italy, and Turkey do not present statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level, standing out for their notable academic visibility. Florida Atlantic and Cornell Universities, Springer and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. publishing houses, and the Journal of Business Ethics and Management Science magazines present the highest citations without statistical differences at the 95% confidence level.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0420.080
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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