MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055535037 · doi:10.2307/3116469

High Finance/Low Strategy: Corporate Collapse in the Canadian Pulp and Paper Industry, 1919–1932

2000· article· en· W2055535037 on OpenAlex
Barry E. C. Boothman

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 Business History Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencyBusinessMarket economyDividendInvestment (military)FinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of the pulp and paper sector has been a highly controversial subject in Canadian business history. During the 1920s, there was a rapid growth of capacity (which reached twice the level of market demand) and a series of mergers as different firms sought to attain giant size. By 1928 several leading companies were experiencing difficulties, and by 1932 half of the producers were bankrupt while the remainder hovered on the brink of insolvency. These developments had their own logic and were driven by strategic issues and the formation of an institutional market for industrial securities. As corporate executives propelled their firms into dubious strategies characterized by excess production and unrealistic dividend policies, the status of the newsprint producers was obscured from investors by financial and accounting practices, thereby contributing to a flood of investment, which was followed by corporate collapse. The attempts to reorganize the companies began a complex process that lasted anywhere from several years to more than a decade.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.130 · 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