Comparison of Prediction Models Applied in Economic Recession and Expansion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a rule, the economy regularly undergoes various phases, from a recession up to expansion. This paper is focused on models predicting corporate financial distress. Its aim is to analyze impact of individual phases of the economic cycle on final scores of the prediction models. The prediction models may be used for quick, inexpensive evaluation of a corporate financial situation leading to business risk mitigation. The research conducted is drawn from accounting data extracted from the prepaid corporate database, Albertina. The carried-out analysis also highlights and examines industry specifics; therefore, three industry branches are under examination. Enterprises falling under Manufacture of metal products, Machinery, and Construction are categorized into insolvent and healthy entities. In this study, 18 models are selected and then applied to the business data describing recession and expansion. The final scores achieved are summarized by the main descriptive statistics, such as mean, median, and trimmed mean, followed by the absolute difference comparing expansion and recession. The results confirm the expectations, assuming that final scores with higher values describe better corporate financial standing during the expansion phase. Similar results are achieved for both healthy and insolvent enterprises. The paper highlights exceptions and offers possible interpretations. As a conclusion, it is recommended that users need to respect the current phase of the economic cycle when interpreting particular results of the prediction models.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it