Strategic synergy: Artificial intelligence, organizational databases, and profitability enhancement with risk management as the mediator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to investigate the intricate interplay between Artificial Intelligence (AI), Organizational Databases, Risk Management, and profitability within the Indonesian banking sector. Employing a quantitative research design, the study seeks to understand the mediating role of Risk Management in the relationships among AI, Organizational Databases, and profitability. The key findings underscore the pivotal importance of Risk Management as a mediator, emphasizing the necessity for a comprehensive risk-aware strategy in optimizing the impact of AI and high-quality databases on financial performance. The research contributes theoretically by providing nuanced insights into the dynamic relationships between technology adoption, risk mitigation, and financial success. Limitations include contextual specificity and temporal constraints, acknowledging the need for caution in generalizing findings. The practical contributions involve recommendations for organizations to continuously monitor and adapt their AI implementations and risk management strategies. The study sets the stage for further research, advocating for cross-industry studies, longitudinal analyses, and in-depth case studies to enhance the understanding of these complex dynamics. Overall, this research provides actionable insights for practitioners and contributes to the ongoing discourse on the evolving landscape of technology, risk management, and financial success.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".