Comparative Analysis between Statistical and Artificial Intelligence Models in Business Failure Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of predicting corporate failure models has emerged since 60s. Economic and social consequences of business failure can be dramatic, thus it is not surprise that the issue has been of growing interest in academic research as well as in business context. The main purpose of this study is to compare the predictive ability of five developed models based on three statistical techniques (Discriminant Analysis, Logit and Probit) and two models based on Artificial Intelligence (Neural Networks and Rough Sets). The five models were employed to a dataset of 420 non-bankrupt firms and 125 bankrupt firms belonging to the textile and clothing industry, over the period 2003-09. Results show that all the models performed well, with an overall correct classification level higher than 90%, and a type II error always less than 2%. The type I error increases as we move away from the year prior to failure. Our models contribute to the discussion of corporate financial distress causes. Moreover it can be used to assist decisions of creditors, investors and auditors. Additionally, this research can be of great contribution to devisers of national economic policies that aim to reduce industrial unemployment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".