Les opérations de fusions et acquisitions internationales sont-elles rentables?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Les actionnaires augmentent-ils leur richesse lorsque les gestionnaires des sociétés canadiennes qu’ils possèdent procèdent à des fusions et acquisitions transfrontalières? Quels sont les facteurs de succès des entreprises procédant aux acquisitions lors de regroupements internationaux? Notre étude démontre que les firmes canadiennes ayant procédé à des fusions et acquisitions transfrontalières n’enregistrent ni gains ni pertes durant la période suivant l’acquisition. Contrairement à leur performance sur le plan national, ces entreprises réussissent à générer suffisamment de valeur pour répondre aux attentes des marchés financiers, compte tenu des risques qu’elles prennent, et à atteindre des niveaux de rendement comparables à ceux d’entreprises similaires du même secteur industriel. Nos résultats, qui concordent avec la théorie de l’internalisation, indiquent que les firmes procédant aux acquisitions peuvent, sous certaines conditions, réaliser d’importantes synergies et créer de la valeur à long terme, notamment lorsqu’elles possèdent des actifs fondés sur le savoir.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".