MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Financial derivatives and risk management: An overview

2025· article· en· W4413286004 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Multidimensional Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk managementBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Financial contracts whose value is derived from an underlying asset, index, orate are known as derivative instruments. They are crucial in managing financial risks, making predictions about asset values, and mitigating risks. Multiple parties that can trade over the counter or on an exchange construct a derivative. Derivatives are multifaceted tools that have changed the financial industry by providing investors with a range of risk management options. With the use of derivatives, risks associated with traditional instruments can be efficiently unbundled and managed independently. Futures, forwards, options, and swaps are the primary derivatives that are used to manage risk in the markets for financial instruments and commodities. When used properly, derivatives can lower expenses while also raising returns. The study's base is secondary data gathered from numerous publications, articles and journals. Understanding the function of derivatives in corporate is management is the goal of this research. According to the study's findings, derivatives are crucial for risk management.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.267 · 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