MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027158250 · doi:10.3905/jpe.2006.667560

Canadian Private Equity

2006· article· en· W2027158250 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIssuerPrivate placementBusinessPrivate equityPrivate equity fundCommissionEquity (law)FinanceAccountingClub dealFinancial systemInvestment banking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze more than 11,000 private placements raised in Canada between 1998 and 2004, before and after the adoption of two new rules, one extending the exemptions for private placements and the other reducing the escrow periods for restricted securities. Consistent with the findings of the Ontario Securities Commission, we observed considerable growth in the proceeds raised. However, this growth originates from funds (including financial institutions and limited partnerships). The regulation thus fails to facilitate the financing activities of small and medium sized enterprises, particularly non-reporting issuers. If the number of placements increased, the total amounts collected monthly by reporting and non-reporting issuers decreased slightly after the adoption of the new rules. <b>TOPICS:</b>Private equity, exchanges/markets/clearinghouses, developed, statistical methods

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.234 · 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