MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115720819 · doi:10.4236/ti.2026.171001

AI in Social Trading: Systemic Risks Calling for Next-Generation Regulation

2025· article· W7115720819 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Investment · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystemic riskFinancial marketFinancial stabilitySocial riskConsumer protectionMarket regulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the systemic risks posed by the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in social trading, emphasizing the urgent need for next-generation regulatory frameworks. While AI enhances decision-making speed, market efficiency, and accessibility, it also introduces challenges such as algorithmic opacity, market manipulation, and amplified systemic vulnerabilities. The study highlights the dual-edged nature of AI-driven social trading platforms and calls for comprehensive, adaptive regulation that balances innovation with financial stability and consumer protection in an increasingly interconnected financial ecosystem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology and InvestmentSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207