Predicting Micro-Enterprise Failures Using Data Mining Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research analysis of small enterprises are still rare, due to lack of individual level data. Small enterprise failures are connected not only with their financial situation abut also with non-financial factors. In recent research we tend to apply more and more complex models. However, it is not so obvious that increasing complexity increases the effectiveness. In this paper the sample of 806 small enterprises were analyzed. Qualitative factors were used in modeling. Some simple and more complex models were estimated, such as logistic regression, decision trees, neural networks, gradient boosting, and support vector machines. Two hypothesis were verified: (i) not only financial ratios but also non-financial factors matter for small enterprise survival, and (ii) advanced statistical models and data mining techniques only insignificantly increase the prediction accuracy of small enterprise failures. Results show that simple models are as good as more complex model. Data mining models tend to be overfitted. Most important financial ratios in predicting small enterprise failures were: operating profitability of assets, current assets turnover, capital ratio, coverage of short-term liabilities by equity, coverage of fixed assets by equity, and the share of net financial surplus in total liabilities. Among non-financial factors only two of them were important: the sector of activity and employment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".