MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929305527 · doi:10.4224/21275223

National Research Council Canada: audit of risk management: internal audit, NRC June 2010

2010· report· en· W6929305527 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaPrivy Council Office
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditInternal auditChief audit executiveJoint auditAudit committeeAudit evidenceInformation technology audit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This audit report presents the findings of the National Research Council (NRC) Canada’s audit of risk management. The decision to conduct this audit was approved by the President following the recommendation of the Audit, Evaluation and Risk Management Committee1 on March 19, 2008 as part of the NRC 2008-09 to 2010-11 Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan. The audit was conducted from February 2009 to August 2009.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.016
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.022

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207