MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067528578 · doi:10.3905/jpe.2006.650460

Causes and Consequences of Venture Capitalist Litigation

2006· article· en· W2067528578 on OpenAlex
Xuan Liu, Imants Paeglis, Thomas Walker

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Private Equity · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationVenture capitalBusinessPortfolioEquity (law)Private equityFinanceTest (biology)AccountingLaw and economicsLawEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sticking with an analysis of the situation postdeal, Liu, Paeglis, and Walker take us into the scary world of SEC lawsuits thrown at venture-backed public companies. Does the strong reputation of a venture firm appear to attract litigation due, perhaps, to the deep pockets of the organization? That9s a scary thought and these authors test it. Are the lawsuits frivolous or do they appear to have merit? Do firms continue to fund companies after the imposition of litigation? Do venture firms named in lawsuits tend to keep or lose their reputational rankings? Can you avoid lawsuits by monitoring your portfolio firms more intensively? We thought you might be interested in the answers to some of these provocative questions. <b>TOPICS:</b>Private equity, exchanges/markets/clearinghouses, risk management, 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · 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