Decline in Self-financing Capacity in 2001 Due to the Economic Downturn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2001, Austrian manufacturing experienced a marked slowdown in demand. Due to the weak growth performance on a world-wide scale, exports to the main trading partners lost their dynamism. WIFO estimates that production expanded by only 1.8 percent in 2001. In the WIFO industry surveys, firms reported rather pessimistic expectations, and during 2001 these expectations got worse from quarter to quarter. On the cost side, there was a decrease in material prices, but a small increase in labour unit costs. Interest rates, however, remained relatively low. In the face of this unfavourable environment, the cash-flow/sales ratio, a measure of the ability of firms to finance new investments or to pay out dividends, has probably decreased. Based on a dynamic econometric panel model, the prediction of the cash-flow/sales ratio amounts to 9.6 percent for 2001, following 9.8 percent in 2000. A survey of 150 manufacturing firms conducted by the Federation of Austrian Industrialists likewise points to a reduction in the cash-flow/sales ratio in the year 2001. Although international comparative data are available only until 1999, Austrian manufacturing has continuously strengthened its position with regard to both its cash-flow ratio and its equity ratio throughout the past decade. For both ratios it is still below the average of ten comparable EU countries, but generally ahead of Germany and Italy. European front runners in terms of the cash-flow/sales ratio in 1999 are the Netherlands and Finland, followed by Denmark. The ranking is similar in terms of the equity ratio, except that Spain and Portugal appear to be ahead of Denmark.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".