MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2403391651 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n6p141

Internal Control Quality and Underinvestment under the Perspective of Corporate Life Cycle

2016· article· en· W2403391651 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)Control (management)RecessionQuality (philosophy)Perspective (graphical)Agency (philosophy)Business cycleBusinessEconomicsPrincipal–agent problemMonetary economicsFinanceCorporate governanceMacroeconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the impact of internal control quality on corporate underinvestment from the perspective of dynamic development at different stages of life cycle, based on the sample of Chinese listed companies. I show that: at the growing stage, corporate underinvestment is mainly caused by financing constraints, at the maturity stage and recession stage, corporate underinvestment is caused by financing constraints and different kinds of agency conflicts. I also find that at different stages of life cycle, the impact of internal control quality on underinvestment is different. At the growing stage,the impact of internal control quality on underinvestment is not significant, at the maturity stage, high quality internal control can inhibit underinvestment significantly, at the recession stage, only in non state-owned company, internal control can inhibit underinvestment significantly, in state-owned company, the relationship is not significant.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→