MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012323017 · doi:10.1002/mde.1046

The decision to finance account receivables: the factoring option

2001· article· en· W2012323017 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

VenueManagerial and Decision Economics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWorking Capital and Financial Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactoringAccounts receivableCashService (business)Product (mathematics)BusinessFinanceEconomicsFinancial servicesAccountingActuarial scienceMarketingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Factoring is a financial service enabling enterprises to sell their accounts receivable to a factoring company in exchange for cash. The market for factoring in the UK has been growing at substantial rates and most banking institutions are now actively involved in providing this service. Little research on the factoring market currently exists and so this paper'seeks to profile the determinants influencing decision making in the UK factoring industry. Using data from an interview‐based survey, this paper establishes that the decision to purchase an enterprise's accounts receivable is influenced by the enterprise's size, type of product or service it offers, industry, sector, age, type of customers, financial statement, the management team, operational suitability, collectability and credit notes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.193 · 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