MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993221007 · doi:10.1142/s0218495802000086

THE SMALL ENTERPRISE-BANK LENDER RELATIONSHIP: FURTHER EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

2002· article· en· W1993221007 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Terence Zinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Enterprising Culture · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanSmall businessBusinessSample (material)FinanceEmpirical researchEmpirical evidencePositive relationshipFinancial system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores selected aspects of the small enterprise-bank lender relationship. Using a sample of small businesses based in Northern Ontario, Canada, it is found that loan approval rates are high and very few borrowers can be classified as being disappointed with their present bank financing arrangements, The results suggest that business size, as measured by the number of full time employees, is positively associated with the level of satisfaction with bank financing arrangements, thus providing partial support for previous studies that have reported that problems between small business borrowers and their banks are more evident for the smallest ventures. In addition, this level of satisfaction is also related to the incidence of visits by the lender to the small firm's place of business. Further, it is found that the sample firms are not accessing non-bank financial institutions to the same degree as their counterparts in other regions of the country. The general implications of these results are discussed and opportunities for further research are identified.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Enterprising CultureSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207