MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595212436 · doi:10.19030/iber.v14i3.9217

On The Growth Process Of Firms: Does Size Matter?

2015· article· en· W1595212436 on OpenAlexaffabout
Atul Dar, Sal Amirkhalkhali

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)DisadvantageEconometricsEmpirical researchEconomicsIndustrial organizationBusinessMathematicsStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this empirical study is to investigate whether the growth process of firms is best explained essentially by a random process as envisaged by Gibrats law, or by identifiable systematic influences such as growth persistence and firm size. A dynamic random coefficients model is applied to data on 260 Canadian firms classified into four groups according to firm size. Gibrats law of proportionate effect is not supported by the empirical results. Specifically, the findings indicate that smaller firms grow faster than larger ones in all cases. However, they also show that the effect of the disadvantage of size on growth is somewhat different for each group.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.234 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER)Same topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207