Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the investment behaviour of 201 Canadian firms over the 1987‐94 period and confirms that liquidity is a significant determinant of Canadian corporate investment. Contrary to recent US evidence, the investment‐liquidity sensitivity of financially constrained firms is not found to be significantly different from that of unconstrained firms. Surprisingly, partially constrained firms exhibit higher investment‐liquidity sensitivity than both constrained and unconstrained firms. The difference from the US results is attributed to the industry structure and closely held nature of Canadian firms. Finally, this study highlights the importance of sample size by demonstrating how sensitive the results can be to the behaviour of a small number of firms. This represents an important observation, since the conclusions of several previous studies are based on small sample results. Résumé Cette étude passe en revue la gestion des investissements de 201 sociétés canadiennes durant les années 1987‐94 et confirme que, en ce qui concerne le milieu d'affaires canadien, la liquidité est un facteur important dans la mise de fonds. Contrairement aux données récentes provenant des EU, l'importance de la liquidité des placements chez les maisons de commerce sous con‐traintes fiscales ne s'avère pas ětre très différente de celle chez les maisons sans pareilles contraintes. De façon surprenante, les maisons sous contraintes fiscales partielles démontrent une sensibilité plus accrue à la liquidité des placements que les maisons davantage contraintes, ou encore sans aucune contrainte. L'écart entre ces données et celles provenant des EU s'explique en fonction de l'organisation industrielle et de la plus haute concentration des actionnaires dans les maisons de commerce canadiennes. Enfin, cette étude souligne l'importance de l'ampleur de l'échantillonage en démontrant à quel point les données peuvent varier en fonction d'un nombre restraint de maisons de commerce. Etant donné que les conclusions de plusieurs études précédentes étaient tirées d'échantillonages plus restreints, cette observation gagne en portée.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".