MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407973386 · doi:10.3390/bdcc9030054

Cognitive Computing and Business Intelligence Applications in Accounting, Finance and Management

2025· article· en· W4407973386 on OpenAlexafffund
S.I. Ao, Marc Hurwitz, Vasile Palade

Bibliographic record

VenueBig Data and Cognitive Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Hong Kong
KeywordsCognitive computingBusiness intelligenceAccountingBusiness managementComputer scienceCognitionFinanceBusinessKnowledge managementPsychologyBusiness administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive computing encompasses computing tools and methods that simulate and mimic the process of human thinking, without human supervision. Deep neural network architectures, natural language processing, big data tools, and self-learning tools based on pattern recognition have been widely deployed to solve highly complex problems. Business intelligence enhances collaboration among different organizational departments with data-driven conversations and provides an organization with meaningful data interpretation for making strategic decisions on time. Since the introduction of ChatGPT in November 2022, the tremendous impacts of using Large Language Models have been rippling through cognitive computing, business intelligence, and their applications in accounting, finance, and management. Unlike other recent reviews in related areas, this review focuses precisely on the cognitive computing perspective, with frontier applications in accounting, finance, and management. Some current limitations and future directions of cognitive computing are also discussed.

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)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBig Data and Cognitive ComputingSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207