MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978772257 · doi:10.3905/jsf.2007.698660

Project Finance with Limited Recourse

2007· article· en· W1978772257 on OpenAlex

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

Venue˜The œjournal of structured finance · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject financeFinanceVolatility (finance)DebtStructured financeBusinessRisk managementEconomicsFinancial crisis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project finance has become an important method for financing large-scale, capital-intensive projects, such as power plants, oil pipelines, roads, tunnels, etc. We analyze debt capacity and risk choice in a project finance arrangement where the project9s lenders have limited recourse to the sponsoring company9s assets. We draw a parallel between vulnerable financial guarantee loans and project finance loans with limited recourse. Using contingent claims analysis, we illustrate the trade-offs between risk and debt capacity in those cases where the project9s lenders have recourse to the sponsor9s assets and in those where they do not. <b>TOPICS:</b>Credit risk management, project finance, volatility measures

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 score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · 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