MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1580135409 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n13p61

Modern Trends in Dynamics and Structure of Working Capital of the Russian Economics

2015· article· en· W1580135409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Irina Viktorovna Degtyarova, Guzel Farisovna Tokareva

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEconomic and Technological Developments in Russia
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsAccounts payableWorking capitalEconomicsMarket liquidityBusinessFinancial systemFinancePayment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the modern context of innovational development, structural changes in manufacturing, global changes on product and stock markets, increase in influence of tax system and other factors of government regulation, quality changes take place in the whole reproduction process including working capital functioning. The present article substantiates changes in the dynamics and structure of working capital in the Russian economy and gives analysis forces affecting it. Research was carried out at the macroeconomic level on the basis of official statistics for the period of 1993-2012 about structure of working capital, current liquidity and organizations’ accounts payable upon obligations published in the website of the Federal service of state statistics and also upon main indicators of market of state short-term bonds (GKO) and federal loan bonds (OFZ), indicated in the website of the Central bank of Russia.The article substantiates changes of the working capital’s structure in the Russian economics which include reduction of stocks share, increase in monetary funds and other financial assets. Much attention is given to changes in structure of financial sources forming the working capital, increase in money supply that contributes to instability of the money market.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicEconomic and Technological Developments in RussiaFrench-language works237,207