MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014945593 · doi:10.1080/1351847x.2014.883549

A behavioural finance approach to working capital management

2014· article· en· W2014945593 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueEuropean Journal of Finance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsAccounts receivableWorking capitalAccounts payableLoss aversionRisk aversion (psychology)BusinessFinanceCapital (architecture)Actuarial scienceCashHeuristicEconomicsFinancial economicsPaymentComputer scienceExpected utility hypothesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper documents the behaviour of corporate treasurers who are involved in the decision-making process in the areas of cash, inventory, accounts receivable, accounts payable and risk management during the global financial crisis. Using a survey questionnaire, we attempt to find out if working capital managers are prone to certain heuristic-driven biases, such as loss aversion, high confidence level, anchoring and self-serving biases. Our findings show that these professionals exhibit signs of behavioural biases. Although the biases lead to sub-optimal decisions in certain areas of working capital management (WCM), they can also be desirable attributes in other aspects of WCM. We propose a profile of a good working capital manager.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.200 · 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