MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996298489 · doi:10.5755/j01.ee.25.3.2737

Research and Development Projects Upon Real Options View

2014· article· en· W1996298489 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueEngineering Economics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Competitor analysisDuopolyCompetition (biology)Cash flowBusinessIndustrial organizationEconomicsMarketingFinanceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the importance of R&D expenditures for SMC (small and medium companies) and for Blue Chips, focusing on the existence of relation between Research and Development (R&D) option value and some variables such as relative probability of innovation, level of capital expenditures, expected innovation rents, expenditures with respect to the implementation of new technologies, proportions of money, proportions of indebtedness, operating cash flows, patents of affiliated companies, numbers of workers, market concentration and the efficiency of work. Empirical analysis also includes R&D projects valuation worksheet based upon the competition duopoly model that we applied to Brazilian Embraer and Canadian Bombardier. Embraer and Bombardier are 3rd and 4th largest suppliers of commercial aircrafts. These are main rival competitors in the segment of small commuter planes. Our main objective was to study changes of R&D projects performance when alterations of environmental factors are simulated. Basically, we observed significant difference between SMCs and Blue Chips. SMC tend to start new R&D projects on their own while Blue Chips buy other companies that already have access to new technologies. Moreover, in the group of small companies, R&D costs are significantly positive, while Blue Chips show opposite results as R&D costs are negative and statistically significant in this group. In addition, R&D projects and patents possessed by investigated companies affect positively R&D projects valuation. Future growth, which forms part of the value of a company, depends on the number of patents pertaining to companies and newly started R&D projects which subsequently will become patents possessed by those companies. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.25.3.2737

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.178 · 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