The economic security of investment projects
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes modern approaches to the concept of "economic security of investment projects". It is concluded that they are based primarily on risk management methodology. This approach is legitimate. However, the existing realities of investment processes give reason to believe that this approach is not always sufficient. The authors of the article offer to broader interpretate the economic security of investment projects. The author's approach is based on a modern interpretation of economic security at the state level, at the regional level, and at the level of an individual enterprise. The author's interpretation corresponds to the principles of an integrated approach, systematicity, and cause-and-effect relationships. Based on the analysis of the functional connections of the investment projects' economic security, the authors conclude that security is a complex concept. This presupposes that structure of investment projects' economic security includes interconnected functional components. According to the authors, investment projects differ significantly in type, volume, scale and significance, in the composition of investors, in goals and objectives. In this regard, the role and significance of each individual structural component of the investment projects' economic security will vary significantly. The authors establish that importance of individual functional components of economic security depend on content and stages of the life cycle of investment projects.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.015 |
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 it