MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141636685 · doi:10.5430/jms.v5n4p26

Probability of Efficiency: Statistical Implications That Lead Firms to Achieve a Minimal and Sufficient “Return-On-Investment”

2014· article· en· W2141636685 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marco Muscettola

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexSample (material)Return on investmentInvestment (military)Probability of defaultLead (geology)BusinessEconometricsCapital investmentActuarial scienceIndustrial organizationFinanceEconomicsMicroeconomicsCredit riskProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After clarifying the relationship between Return-On-Investment (ROI) and the possibility of default, the research sets a minimum level of this ratio, which can generally be assigned to an efficient and healthy firm. From this step we start to comprehend which are the economic and financial variables that owned the firms, three years before, reaching that minimum level of ROI. With logistics methodology and a large sample of 5,388 Italian SMEs, a rating model may be built to predict the probability of efficiency and will be studied accounting variables that lead a firm with more possibilities to be "prospective efficient". Results support the view of the importance of capital structure and operating profitability ratios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and StrategySame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207