MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088938895 · doi:10.1142/s108494671100194x

THE DETERMINANTS OF RISK PREMIUM: THE CASE OF BANK LINES OF CREDIT GRANTED TO SMEs

2011· article· en· W2088938895 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josée St‐Pierre, Moujib Bahri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Developmental Entrepreneurship · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessBank creditCredit riskQuality (philosophy)Transactional leadershipFinancial systemMonetary economicsFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this paper is to gain a better understanding of the factors that determine the risk premium on bank lines of credit obtained by SMEs, and whether firm size, which may be used by banks to segment their client base, also has an impact on credit costs. An analysis of data from 406 SMEs in Canada showed the main determinants of risk premium were firm size, line of credit size, ability to repay, the relationship between banker and entrepreneur, and the length of the relationship with the bank. These determinants change according to the market segment in which the potential borrower operates. Banks appear to use a transactional approach for smaller borrowers, where credit terms are based on quantitative financial data, and a relational approach for larger firms, where relationship length and quality become significant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Developmental EntrepreneurshipSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207