MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413912367 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.9.015

Strategic synergy: Artificial intelligence, organizational databases, and profitability enhancement with risk management as the mediator

2025· article· en· W4413912367 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rumanintya Lisaria Putri, Hersugondo Hersugondo, Robet Asnawi, Zainuri Hanif, I Nyoman Normal, Suprapto Suprapto, La Sinaini La Sinaini, Murry Harmawan Saputra, Amik Krismawati, Akhmad Yasin, Basrowi Basrowi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMediatorProfitability indexKnowledge managementBusinessStrategic managementProcess managementComputer scienceMarketingMedicineFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.322
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

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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207