MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108046417

Assess the Rating of SMEs by using Classification And Regression Trees (CART) with Qualitative Variables

2014· article· en· W2108046417 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCartBusinessCredit ratingCorporate governanceSample (material)Actuarial scienceEconometricsEconomicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Italian banks have never used the credit rating system to grant funds to SMEs until the introduction of Basel II accord. Credit Rating Systems use financial ratios that are often not adapted to SMEs' assessment. In fact, small and medium-size enterprises are characterized by a high level of intangible assets. Some researchers focus their attention on the evaluation of qualitative variables of SMEs (management; corporate governance; SMEs-territory relationship), but no research is able to integrate these SMEs¡¯ qualitative variables into a single scoring model, or to sufficiently consider the characteristics of SMEs-financial markets relationship. This paper proposes a specific credit scoring model to SMEs' assessment which includes all these variables combining two methods: Altman¡¯s ¡®EM-Score¡¯ and CART (Classification and Regression Tree). This model is performed on a sample of 6, 534 Italian manufacturing firms getting a high level of reliability.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.232 · 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