NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT: CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the most popular and most used national risk management standards. The author examines the peculiarities of each standard. Today, many developed countries have their own risk management standards, or they are internationally accepted in this area. Each national standard has its own approaches, different degrees of detail of processes, are obligatory or on the contrary are only a recommendation. Thus, the British standard does not provide for the identification stage and is almost unacceptable for Ukrainian companies. Despite the high level of the British standard, it is difficult to apply or totally inapplicable in other countries, for example in Ukraine, due to a significant difference in national management culture, accounting legislation and state regulation. According to the results of the study, the Australian standard AS / NZS 4360: 2004 is the most popular in the world, and therefore the process of risk management is presented graphically by the author. This document is the most comprehensive and elaborated national standard in the field of risk management. It has a sectoral nature, and its main provisions are adapted to form risk management systems. The basis of the standard is the risk management process. When compared to the ISO 31000 standard, risk management is only part of the whole document. Taking into account the analytical work, the article laconically reviews the main ideas of a series of Austrian standards, Canadian and Japanese standards. The Russian standard, which is a professional document focused on risk managers, is also considered, as well as a number of standards directly related to risk management in companies in the real sector of the economy. In general, the key points of national risk management standards that may be applicable in domestic risk management practices are highlighted. In addition to existing international, industry and national standards directly related to risk management, there are a number of other risk-taking standards, they are more specialized in a specific field of activity and supplement the former.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".