MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109319744 · doi:10.1504/ijesb.2014.063779

Financial institutions and the taxi-cab industry: an exploratory study in Canada

2014· article· en· W2109319744 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amarjit Gill, Nahum Biger, Léo‐Paul Dana, John D. Obradovich, Ansari Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsBank of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinanceBusinessShareholderCollateralEntrepreneurshipExploratory researchAccountingCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A current challenge taxi-cab owner/operators face in Canada is the lack of financing for taxi-cabs. This article examines business opportunities and lending risk; it also provides risk management strategies for financial institutions to manage the risk of lending to the taxi-cab industry. Members of the boards of directors and shareholders from the Canadian taxi-cab industry, and lenders from financial institutions that do not provide financing to taxi-cab owner/operators, were interviewed. Board members and shareholders were asked about their perceptions regarding business opportunity, risk, and their willingness to provide collateral for taxi-cab loans. Lenders of financial institutions were asked about their reasons for not providing taxi-cab loans. The findings of this study show that there is a reasonably attractive opportunity for financial institutions to offer financing for taxi-cab owner/operators. However, the findings also show that there are both systematic and unsystematic risks in lending to the taxi-cab industry. This offers recommendations on risk management strategies for Canadian lenders to mitigate the risk in lending to the Canadian taxi-cab industry. Our findings may be useful for new and existing financial/lending institutions, lenders, investors, and taxi-cab owner/operators.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small BusinessSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207