London Calling ?: The Experience of the Alternative Investment Market and the Competitiveness of Canadian Stock Exchanges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stock exchanges are an important determinant of the competitiveness of Canadian capital markets. Regulators have recognized this fact when they have approved the consolidation of Canadian stock exchanges in 1999. The specialization of stock exchanges purported to enable them to cater more effectively to issuers and investors, and thereby to face the competition from foreign-based exchanges. Indeed, the competition has increased as foreign stock exchanges increasingly seek to attract listing from Canadian firms. In this respect, Canadian issuers' interest in listing on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) of the London Stock Exchange (LSE) is a testament of this growing competition. Created in 1995 to allow companies to access public capital with a reduced regulatory burden, AIM has been extremely successful in attracting investors and issuers, including more recently a number of Canadian public companies. The attractiveness of AIM is intriguing for policymakers interested in the competitiveness of Canadian securities markets. Despite the interest generated by AIM, few studies have been devolved to this specialized stock exchange, either from an economic or regulatory perspective. And none of the existing studies has sought to analyze the relevance of the AIM model for Canadian stock exchanges, and, more broadly, the competitiveness of Canadian capital markets. From this perspective, the following analysis seeks to fill this research gap by providing a better understanding of AIM. Specifically, the objectives of this article are two-fold. First, this article examines the extent to which AIM has been successful with Canadian issuers. Second, it discusses whether the AIM model is informative for the regulatory approach followed by Canadian stock exchanges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".