MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901913686 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2018.07.66

Assessment of the Financial Stability of Russian Printing Companies: Business Services Sector#

2018· article· en· W2901913686 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raisa Fedosova, Alexander Lisovsky, Anastasia Yussuf, Svetlana Panova, Galina Zlotnikova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEconomic and Technological Developments in Russia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessFinancial stabilityFinancial servicesFinancial sectorFinanceFinancial system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article substantiates the necessity of assessing financial stability of printing companies involved in the business services sector. Peculiarities of business activities of today’s printing companies under current conditions have been revealed and financial stability levels of these companies, computed based on Edward Altman’s Z-score bankruptcy probability assessment model, have been defined. To analyze the status of printing companies involved in the business services sector, Altman’s methodology that is based on a five-factor model for predicting the insolvency risk of companies was applied. The analysis of the industry allowed us to distribute selected companies in three zones of bankruptcy. The number of companies in three bankruptcy zones as well as their share in the total scope of firms in the period under review was defined. Recommendations on the implementation of a set of measures in production and management structures of the assessed companies have been suggested. These measures allow the financial position of the companies in the industry to be maintained and strengthened. The results of this study may lay the foundation for further studies of urgent issues related to the analysis and evaluation of the financial sustainability level of printing companies.

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reviews on Global EconomicsSame topicEconomic and Technological Developments in RussiaFrench-language works237,207