Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the costs associated with initial public offerings (IPOs), and this is performed by undertaking a large sample of Canadian and United States IPOs. More specifically, we gather information in the universe of firm-commitment and best-effort IPOs in Canada and in the United States, from 1997 to 1999, and measure their direct and indirect costs. Overall, we are able to confirm that the Canadian market is superior to its U.S. counterpart in terms of IPO costs. In other words, do Canadian firms have access to equity capital on a competitive basis in comparison with U.S. firms. However, we confirm that the going public process is costly, particularly for small firms. L'objectif de cette etude est l'analyse des divers couts associes aux emissions initiales d'actions canadiennes. Elle repose sur l'analyse comparee d'echantillons importants d'emissions americaines et canadiennes. Nous avons etudie l'ensemble des emissions de la periode 1997-1999, et seules ont ete omises les emissions pour lesquelles l'information requise n'etait pas disponible. Les couts directs et indirects ont ete estimes. Le marche canadien presente un avantage net par rapport au marche americain en ce qui concerne les couts d'emission des entreprises de petite taille. Les couts sont semblables pour les emissions de grande taille. Dans les deux pays, le processus d'emission reste onereux, notamment pour les emissions d'un montant peu eleve mais nos resultats contredisent l'argument voulant qu'en raison de la structure provinciale de sa reglementation, le marche canadien soit moins attrayant que celui des Etats-Unis pour l'obtention de capital.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".