MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024626198 · doi:10.3905/jpe.2005.580522

PIPEs

2005· article· en· W2024626198 on OpenAlex
Cécile Carpentier, Jean-François L’Her, Jean‐Marc Suret

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

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Private Equity · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingBusinessEquity (law)FinancePrivate equityIssuerContext (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the U.S., private investment in public equity (PIPE) is thriving. In Canada, the PIPE market also appears to be expanding rapidly, although evidence is scarce. The Canadian institutional context has generated a large pool of public stocks, with real but relatively minor financing requirements. The regulatory structure is also distinctive since private equity is viewed by policy makers and regulators as a way to obviate the financing gap affecting young growing companies. Consequently, the Canadian institutional and regulatory contexts differ from the U.S., owing to its rapid evolution and its tendency to strongly favor the emergence of vigorous PIPE activity. Our study shows that PIPEs have been more common in Canada than in the U.S. in the last decade. PIPE issuers belong predominantly to the primary sector, are small but not the smallest listed companies, and are growth-oriented companies, but not the more growth-oriented listed companies. PIPE may be a financing mode particularly well suited to the needs of small and medium-size companies, and thus deserves in-depth analysis.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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