MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979742987 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v8n4p139

The Effects of Cash Flow Uncertainty and Working Capital on Non-Cash Flow Shock Returns

2015· article· en· W1979742987 on OpenAlex
Shokrolah Khajavi, Samaneh Ghoohestani

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWorking Capital and Financial Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCash flowCash on cash returnOperating cash flowShock (circulatory)Cash flow forecastingStock exchangeWorking capitalEconomicsEconometricsStock (firearms)BusinessMonetary economicsCash and cash equivalentsFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the findings of Elton et al. (1999) study, the stock return consists of several components which among them is the cash flow shock return. This means that in prior research, stock return variable were investigated regardless of cash flow shocks. This study investigated the influence of cash flow uncertainty and working capital on non-cash flow shock returns. In this regard, data were gathered from a sample of companies listed on Tehran Stock Exchange from 2004 to 2013. The research hypotheses were examined by multiple regressions. The research results showed that there is a significant relationship between working capital and non-cash flow shock returns. In addition, there is no significant relationship between cash flow uncertainty and non-cash flow shock returns.

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)0.001
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 score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.253 · 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