MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418773188 · doi:10.1177/0263774x16665620

Business advice and lending in small firms

2016· article· en· W2418773188 on OpenAlex
Anoosheh Rostamkalaei, Mark Freel

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning C Politics and Space · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverdraftDue diligenceBusinessLoanSmall businessFinanceDebtBusiness risksAdvice (programming)Empirical evidenceAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature on lending to small firms has primarily focused on the mechanisms and methods used to evaluate entrepreneurs and businesses and on the types of firms that are more likely to experience unfavourable application outcomes. That is, the focus of most empirical research is on supply-side decisions. The current research attempts to shed some light on demand-side considerations. Drawing upon data collected as the UK SME Finance Monitor (2011–2014), we identify links between entrepreneurs' diligence, business risk and finance-related advice-seeking prior to initiating loan and overdraft applications. The results show evidence of the usefulness of advice in ameliorating, both structural and strategic, business risk and improving the prospects of successful debt applications to banks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.175 · 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