An Ensemble Classifier-Based Scoring Model for Predicting Bankruptcy of Polish Companies in the Podkarpackie Voivodeship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This publication presents the methodological aspects of designing of a scoring model for an early prediction of bankruptcy by using ensemble classifiers. The main goal of the research was to develop a scoring model (with good classification properties) that can be applied in practice to assess the risk of bankruptcy of enterprises in various sectors. For the data sample, which included 1739 Polish businesses (of which 865 were bankrupt and 875 had no risk of bankruptcy), a genetic algorithm was applied to select the optimum set of 19 bankruptcy indicators, on the basis of which the classification accuracy of a number of ensemble classifier model variants (boosting, bagging and stacking) was estimated and verified. The classification effectiveness of ensemble models was compared with eight classical individual models which made use of single classifiers. A GBM-based ensemble classifier model offering superior classification capabilities was used in practice to design a scoring model, which was applied in comparative evaluation and bankruptcy risk analysis for businesses from various sectors and of different sizes from the Podkarpackie Voivodeship in 2018 (over a time horizon of up to two years). The approach applied can also be used to assess credit risk for corporate borrowers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".