MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974294538 · doi:10.1108/14630010210811741

European versus US corporations: A comparison of property holdings

2001· article· en· W1974294538 on OpenAlex
Steven Laposa, Mark Charlton

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Corporate Real Estate · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance sheetVariety (cybernetics)AccountingBenchmark (surveying)Property (philosophy)BusinessBalance (ability)European marketFinancial economicsEconomicsIndustrial organizationActuarial scienceCommerceStatisticsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper compares the corporate property holdings of European and US corporations. The authors initially calculate standard benchmarks based on accounting and balance‐sheet information as of 1999, and then test for significant differences by two‐digit standard industrial classification levels between European and US firms. They follow the methodology of Johnson and Keasler (1993) and compare property, plant and equipment book values to a variety of non‐property balance sheet and market value figures. However, this paper extends previous research through a comparative analysis of 1,573 US firms to 2,182 European firms. The findings suggest there are significant differences between Europe and the USA, dependent on the specific benchmark and industrial sector. The conclusions postulate a variety of explanations of the corporate property differences and provide ideas for further research.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.138 · 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