MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007072840 · doi:10.1177/0972150919895092

Effects of Cross-border Merger and Acquisition on the Operational Risk of US and Canadian Companies

2020· article· en· W3007072840 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruno Lopes de Paula, Daiana Paula Pimenta, Ricardo Limongi, Jaluza Maria Lima Silva Borsatto, Rafael Manoel de Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Business Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexBusinessMergers and acquisitionsOperational riskInvestment (military)Business risksEmerging marketsIndustrial organizationFinanceRisk managementMarketingPoliticsRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of the world economies is responsible for an increase in the number of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A), together with the growing participation of companies from emerging countries in this type of investment. However, the area studies focus their analyses on the determinants, antecedents and profitability of the companies, leaving the effects of this type of business on the operational risk of the companies involved as a gap to be explored. To fill it, we used panel data regressions to identify the relationship between cross-border M&A and the operational risk of companies. The results indicate that acquiring companies based in emerging economies are the ones that suffer the most significant impacts on this type of business. As the implication, this study serves as a basis for the decision-making of the managers of the acquiring companies, being able to identify the risks of this activity and the ways of preventing them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Business ReviewSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207