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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how and why a firm’s product market power affects its dividend policy. Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses three measures of market power? The degree of import competition, Herfindahl-Hirschman index, and Lerner Index? To examine how a firm’s product market power affects its dividend policy. Further, it proposes and tests a risk-based explanation for this impact. Findings – This paper shows that market power positively affects the dividend decision, in terms of both the probability of paying a dividend and the amount of dividend payment. It also provides evidence that the route through which market power affects the dividend decision is business risk: firms with less market power are riskier and hence less likely to pay dividends than firms with more market power. Practical implications – The results show that product market power may have played an important role in reshaping dividend policy of corporate America. Originality/value – This study documents the relevance of market power behind dividend policy and therefore adds to the knowledge on the relationship between product markets and corporate financial policies, which is an important and understudied area of corporate finance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it