Financial issues in construction companies: bibliometric analysis and trends
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
The success of construction contractors largely depends on the specific terms and the availability of sufficient funds for realizing planned projects. Financial issues in construction have been discussed since mid 1970s, yet no consensus about progress has been reached in the construction finance literature. A systematic analysis of 259 finance related studies in construction is undertaken to identify research trends, critical topics, and performance of journals and authors. To map the productivity in construction finance field, Scopus database was searched for the entire period for which this database provides online coverage. Results reveal that “financial health” category, in particular one group of studies aiming to monitor and assess the financial performance of construction organizations for broader strategic issues pervaded the construction finance research. However, notably the “identification of capital structure, determinants and financing instruments” category received less and only recent attention from scholars, despite the significance of capital structure decisions under firm and country specific determinants in preventing company failures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.133 | 0.102 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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