MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921859420 · doi:10.5430/afr.v8n2p56

The Impact of Operational Capabilities on Corporate Performance: Evidence from Listed Companies in the Agriculture, Forestry, Livestock Farming, Fishery Industry

2019· article· en· W2921859420 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maoguo Wu, Daimin Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureBusinessChinaPanel dataLivestockEmpirical researchIndustrial organizationEconomicsForestryEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In China, the agriculture, forestry, livestock farming, fishery (AFLF) industry is the basis of all industries. However, the overall development and performance level of listed companies in the AFLF industry is lower than the overall market level. According to previous literature, there is generally a positive impact of operational capabilities on the corporate performance of listed companies, but the impact on listed companies in the AFLF industry has not been investigated. This study attempts to fill in the gap by empirically analyzing the impact of operational capabilities on the corporate performance of listed companies in the AFLF industry in China. Based on a panel data set of 43 listed companies, this study performs regressions using a fixed effect model and a threshold panel model. The results show that there is a positive correlation between the operational capabilities and the corporate performance of listed companies in the AFLF industry, but different indicators that represent operational capabilities have different impacts on corporate performance. Based on the empirical results, this study puts forward corresponding suggestions for listed companies in the AFLF industry and policy makers.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207