Motives Involved in the Processes of Mergers in Credit Unions: A Study in Minas Gerais, Brazil
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
This study aims to identify the reasons that led credit unions in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil, to carry out processes of incorporation, based on the motives included in the theory of the firm and the agency theory: asymmetrical expectations, compensation and tax incentives, replacement costs and market values, seek for economies of scale, anticompetitive effects and pursuit of monopoly power and reducing the risk of insolvency. We investigated four credit unions that have undergone processes of mergers from 2008 to 2011, by interviewing six managers who participated in the processes of incorporation. Compensation and tax incentives, anticompetitive effects and pursuit of monopoly power were not motivating factors, but we identified the seek for economies of scale as a motivation in all the cooperatives studied. We observed that the cooperative has an organizational structure distinct from other kinds of business, but there is a similarity in their merging processes, because the underlying reasons inserted in the theory of the firm and the agency theory were identified as triggers for the mergers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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