Country risk is an important concern in international business. Country risk classification refers to determining the risk level at which a country will not repay its international debt. Traditionally, country risk classification resorts to statistics methods such as discriminant analysis. In the past two decades, the so-called multicriteria decision aid (MCDA) methods have been proved to enjoy better performance than the standard statistics methods. Nevertheless, the performance of the MCDA methods is still far away from satisfactory and can be improved significantly. The better performance of several MCDA methods, such as UTADIS (UTilités Additives DIScriminantes) and MHDIS (Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination), is achieved by exploiting the rater’s background knowledge. In the standard MCDA model, we assume that the criterion function for every factor is monotone and all the factors are independent. Then, we approximate the impact of every factor and use the sum of the corresponding criterion functions to determine the risk level of a country. By discretizing the feasible domain of the factor, the MCDA method solves a linear program to find a classifier for country risk classification. This thesis tries to enhance the capability of MCDA methods by allowing a class of non-monotone criteria: the unimodal ones. For this purpose, we developed an integer quadratic (non-convex) program for general unimodal criteria. Further, if we restrict ourselves to convex or concave unimodal criteria, then we can still use a linear program to find a classifier. For the case where all the factors are correlated, a simple quadratic form of aggregation is proposed to deal with it. Compared with the original UTADIS model, our generalized model is more flexible and can deal with more complex scenarios. Finally, our generalized model is tested based on cross-validation and our experiment is carried out under the AMPL+sovers environment. Promising numeric results indicate that except for its theoretical advantages, our generalized model exhibits practical efficiency and robustness as well. / Thesis / Master of Science (MS)

Objective: To determine the clinical validity of family history (FH) in colorectal cancer (CRC) risk classification. Methods: The Assessment of Risk of Colon Tumors In Canada case-control dataset was used to develop regression models associating risk factors with CRC in Ontario adults. Two regression models (‘clinically-driven’ based on a previously published tool, and data-driven) examined discrimination between CRC cases and controls, with and without the inclusion of FH as a risk variable. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve. Results: For males, with the addition of FH, there were statistically significant yet quantitatively modest improvements in both models (3.7% clinically-driven, 6.8% data-driven). For females, while FH was a statistically significant predictor of CRC status in the data-driven model, the improvement in discrimination was not significant in either model. Conclusion: FH provides very small improvement in model discrimination beyond other standard CRC risk factors.

In order to facilitate trade between EU members, the European Committee has created regulations that will govern supervision of organic products. Every regulatory agency shall, according to the European Committees regulations, carry out a risk classification of each organic producer they regulate. This study for The National Food Administration compares regulation of Swedish organic products with other countries, and aims to produce a simplified model based on risk that can be the beginning of the risk classification model that Sweden in the current situation don’t have. The thesis is based on three questions: 1) What criteria should we use for assigning organic food producers? 2) How do selected European countries and frontrunners rate organic producers and what can Sweden learn from them? 3) How might a national classification model of organic production look in order to ensure an equivalent level of regulation and prevent competition among private inspection bodies? A review of information gathered from the different countries gave differing results. Few real classification models were provided, and instead only guidance and manuals were received. The simplified classification model that has been recommended as a model for the Swedish risk classification is largely taken from the Norwegian control body Debio, which in the current situation seems to have one of the most developed risk classification models in Europe. The conclusion of this study is that

The Swedish Food Safety Authority is working to develop a new model for risk classification to classify food companies. An objective of the new risk classification model is to enable food companies to obtain reduced control time through third-party certifications. The purpose of this study was to map out the most common standards in the food industry and to evaluate how relevant they are for food safety legislation. An investigation was made of the content in four selected standards to assess how relevant they were for the food legislation. Surveys were designed to study how common the standards were. One survey was sent to municipalities in northern and southern regions in Sweden. Another survey was sent to companies and trade associations. There are significantly more municipalities that have heard about the selected standards than municipalities that have not. All trade associations stated that they knew one or more of the standards. The review of the standards reveals that the standards are relevant for compliance with food legislation. The standards cover the food legislation, such as product traceability, HACCP, and allergens. Trade associations and companies were more convinced about a decreased need for control through certifications in comparison with control authorities. In conclusion, a future national classification model should allow control authorities to determine when it is appropriate to reduce the need for control through third-party certification. Certification against the selected standards can be used to reduce control time, but a study needs to be done on how to use them.

The financial crisis turmoil has exposed notable weakness in the risk management processes of the financial services industry. It has also led to a critical look at the scope of the various risk types as well as the classification of loss events. More importantly, the effects that incorrect risk classification might have on capital requirements are now also examined and taken into account. Boundary events between credit risk and operational risk continue to be a significant source of concern for regulators and the industry in general. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) requires that boundary events should be treated as credit risk for the purposes of calculating minimum regulatory capital under the Basel II Framework. Such losses will, therefore, not be subject to any operational risk capital charges. However, for the purposes of internal operational risk management, banks are required to identify all material operational risk losses. Boundary events should be flagged separately within a bank’s internal operational risk database. The Basel II Framework does not provide any further guidelines as to what constitutes boundary events and, therefore, consistent guiding principles that banks can follow for accurately classifying and subsequently flagging such events do not exist. The potential exists that actual boundary events might be classified as purely credit risk, and correctly be included in the credit risk capital charge, but not be flagged separately within the bank’s internal operational risk database. Alternatively, boundary events might be classified as operational risk and, therefore, be subject to the operational risk capital charge, instead of the credit risk capital charge. The former instance might give rise to an operational risk manager not being completely informed of the operational risks that the business is facing. The emphasis should always be on the management of risks and for this reason it is important that a financial institution indicates and flags all boundary events in their operational risk systems. To remedy this lack of guidance on the boundary event issue, guidelines are provided that banks can utilise within their risk classification processes. The approach utilised is to consider mechanisms and tools for classification, guidance from the Operational Risk Data Exchange (ORX) and the BCBS, as well as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). By compiling and submitting questionnaires to five South African banks, an investigation is conducted in order to obtain a view of the current mechanisms, tools and approaches that South African Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA) banks currently utilise within their classification processes. The effectiveness of boundary event classification is assessed by analysing the percentage of losses classified as boundary. In addition, the degree of uniformity or disparity in the classification of typical boundary event scenarios is considered. This analysis is performed by providing respondents with a total of 16 typical boundary event risk descriptions, and requesting the respondents to classify each of the losses in the scenarios as credit risk, operational risk or boundary event type. / Thesis (M.Com. (Risk management))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.

The financial crisis turmoil has exposed notable weakness in the risk management processes of the financial services industry. It has also led to a critical look at the scope of the various risk types as well as the classification of loss events. More importantly, the effects that incorrect risk classification might have on capital requirements are now also examined and taken into account. Boundary events between credit risk and operational risk continue to be a significant source of concern for regulators and the industry in general. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) requires that boundary events should be treated as credit risk for the purposes of calculating minimum regulatory capital under the Basel II Framework. Such losses will, therefore, not be subject to any operational risk capital charges. However, for the purposes of internal operational risk management, banks are required to identify all material operational risk losses. Boundary events should be flagged separately within a bank’s internal operational risk database. The Basel II Framework does not provide any further guidelines as to what constitutes boundary events and, therefore, consistent guiding principles that banks can follow for accurately classifying and subsequently flagging such events do not exist. The potential exists that actual boundary events might be classified as purely credit risk, and correctly be included in the credit risk capital charge, but not be flagged separately within the bank’s internal operational risk database. Alternatively, boundary events might be classified as operational risk and, therefore, be subject to the operational risk capital charge, instead of the credit risk capital charge. The former instance might give rise to an operational risk manager not being completely informed of the operational risks that the business is facing. The emphasis should always be on the management of risks and for this reason it is important that a financial institution indicates and flags all boundary events in their operational risk systems. To remedy this lack of guidance on the boundary event issue, guidelines are provided that banks can utilise within their risk classification processes. The approach utilised is to consider mechanisms and tools for classification, guidance from the Operational Risk Data Exchange (ORX) and the BCBS, as well as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). By compiling and submitting questionnaires to five South African banks, an investigation is conducted in order to obtain a view of the current mechanisms, tools and approaches that South African Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA) banks currently utilise within their classification processes. The effectiveness of boundary event classification is assessed by analysing the percentage of losses classified as boundary. In addition, the degree of uniformity or disparity in the classification of typical boundary event scenarios is considered. This analysis is performed by providing respondents with a total of 16 typical boundary event risk descriptions, and requesting the respondents to classify each of the losses in the scenarios as credit risk, operational risk or boundary event type. / Thesis (M.Com. (Risk management))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.

Background: Aim of this observational study with a three-month follow-up was to evaluate an educational concept for risk-oriented prevention applied by fifth-year undergraduate dental students. Methods: Dental students from two clinical treatment courses of the last undergraduate year were included. The subjects were divided into two groups according to their assignment to the two clinical classes. Group A received a sequence of seminars, including the basics of a risk classification system (RCS) with the theoretical background and case studies in the context of preventive dentistry. Thereby, 1) a theoretical seminar (background, RCS, cases) and 2) the transfer of the RCS on a clinical patient case chosen by the student, and its presentation within a discussion round was applied. Group B served as a comparison group with students who did not receive any of teaching events in terms of RCS. The self-perceived knowledge and importance of RCS, as well as objective knowledge (qualitative questions), were assessed with a standardized questionnaire at baseline and after 3 months. Results: Out of 90 students at baseline, 79 (group A: 39, group B: 40) were re-evaluated after 3 months. At this follow-up, Group A estimated their confidence in handling the medication (p = 0.02), the RCS (p < 0.01), and in identifying the risk of oral diseases (p = 0.02) higher than group B. Furthermore, group A felt it was more important to identify patients at risk (p = 0.02), the risk of complications (p = 0.02) and to apply an RCS (p = 0.03). At follow-up, group A exhibited more correct answers of qualitative questions than group B regarding risk of complications (p < 0.01) and bacteremia (p < 0.01). Group A felt more confident with at-risk patients and more competent concerning RCS than group B (p < 0.01). Conclusion: The concept for educating risk-oriented prevention increased the self-perceived skills and the knowledge of undergraduate dental students after 3 months within a clinical treatment course.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(医学) / 甲第21628号 / 医博第4434号 / 新制||医||1033(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院医学研究科医学専攻 / (主査)教授 溝脇 尚志, 教授 平井 豊博, 教授 森田 智視 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Medical Science / Kyoto University / DFAM

In the first chapter the paper is focused on sovereign rating, it describes the history and explains the basic characteristics in the context of its usual usage. In the second chapter the basics behind the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits are explained. Because the main purpose of this paper is to compare sovereign rating and the country risk classification based on the Arrangement, the chapter focuses especially on the Knaepen Package that introduced country risk classification to the Arrangement. In the chapter there is also the introduction to the Malzkuhn-Drysdale Package. In the third and fourth chapter sovereign ratings and county risk classifications are compared on theoretical basis. There were used several different criteria, e.g. methodology of rating/classifying, time necessary for adjustment and criteria for evaluation. The fifth chapter is focused on Basel I-III, the connection between Basel capital adequacy and both credit risk evaluation systems is explained. In the following chapter, the question of guilt of rating agencies and their role in the outbreak of financial crisis is discussed. The last chapter is based on the case study that describes the difference between development of financial crisis in Italy and Greece and its impact on rating grades and country risk classification.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-10T10:57:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ANA PAULA RIBEIRO ZENHA.pdf: 448471 bytes, checksum: 5713d407b2b1f94618a94c7902b60d1a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-06-29 / It is a descriptive and exploratory study with a qualitative approach, conducted from November of 2014 to February of 2015 in urgency and emergency units in the city of Goiania, aiming to analyze the reception process with risk classification within these public units through a client s perspective. 68 clients took part of this study. They were in the urgency and emergency units selected and they had been taken care of through the risk classification and had received the specifications: yellow, green and blue. The data was collected through interviews and direct observation and registered in a field diary. In order to collect the data, it was used the technique of semi structured individual interview taped in audio. It was observed that clients were not well guided on the concept and applicability of the reception with risk classification within these units nor on the benefits this method allows to the public health system. There were unhappy clients, but the majority found itself happy with the risk classification. It was observed that some of them, due to the recurrence to these units, have discovered how the system worked and found ways to anticipate their medical care. However, they declared that there was never a clarification from the institutions. There is a certain degree of approval of the reception with risk classification from part of the clients, for many of them demonstrated to understand the difference in the seriousness of those who seek care in these units saying that they felt safer waiting for the care after being trialed in the reception unit. The study has concluded that the client awareness of how the system works and the goals of the risk classification have provided them with a better understanding of the units flow in identifying which cases are urgent, allowing the reorganization of the internal unit flow and indicating a subtle level of awareness of which unit the client should go to in order to have his or her needs attended and also offering safety to clients and professionals involved in the risk classification process as soon as the patients arrive in urgency and emergency units. / Trata-se de um estudo descritivo exploratório com abordagem qualitativa, realizado nos meses de novembro de 2014 a fevereiro do ano de 2015, nas unidades de urgência e emergência de Goiânia, com o objetivo de analisar o processo de acolhimento com classificação de risco nessas unidades públicas, na visão do usuário. Participaram do estudo 68 usuários que estavam nas unidades de urgência e emergências selecionadas e que já haviam sido atendidos pela classificação de risco e receberam as especificações: amarela, verde e azul. Os dados foram coletados por meio de entrevista e observações diretas, registradas em diário de campo. Para a coleta de dados, foi utilizada a técnica de entrevista individual semiestruturada, gravada em áudio. Observamos que os usuários não foram devidamente orientados acerca do conceito e da aplicabilidade do acolhimento com classificação de risco nessas unidades e nem sobre os benefícios que esse método proporciona ao sistema público de saúde. Encontramos usuários insatisfeitos, porém a maioria se declarou bem atendida pela classificação de risco. Notamos que alguns, pela recorrência nessas unidades, haviam conseguido decifrar o funcionamento do dispositivo e encontrar formas para antecipação de seu atendimento médico, porém alegam que nunca houve esclarecimento por parte das instituições. Há certa aprovação do acolhimento com classificação de risco por parte dos usuários, pois muitos demonstraram compreender a diferença de gravidade dos que buscam atendimento nessas unidades e alegaram ficar mais seguros na espera pelo atendimento médico após serem consultados no setor de acolhimento. Concluímos que a conscientização dos usuários quanto ao funcionamento e objetivos do acolhimento com classificação de risco proporcionou maior compreensão do fluxo das unidades, ao identificar quais atendimentos são de urgência, favorecendo a reorganização do fluxo interno da unidade, apontando uma sutil conscientização acerca da unidade que o usuário deve recorrer em suas necessidades de saúde, além de proporcionar segurança aos usuários e profissionais envolvidos no processo de classificação de risco, assim que esses usuários chegam às unidades de urgência e emergência.