Assessment of Bankruptcy Risk of Large Companies: European Countries Evolution Analysis
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
Assessment and estimation of bankruptcy risk is important for managers in decision making for improving a firm’s financial performance, but also important for investors that consider it prior to making investment decision in equity or bonds, creditors and company itself. The aim of this paper is to improve the knowledge of bankruptcy prediction of companies and to analyse the predictive capacity of factor analysis using as basis the discriminant analysis and the following five models for assessing bankruptcy risk: Altman, Conan and Holder, Tafler, Springate and Zmijewski. Stata software was used for studying the effect of performance over risk and bankruptcy scores were obtained by year of analysis and country. Data used for non-financial large companies from European Union were provided by Amadeus database for the period 2006–2015. In order to analyse the effects of risk score over firm performance, we have applied a dynamic panel-data estimation model, with Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) estimators to regress firm performance indicator over risk by year and we have used Tobit models to infer about the influence of company performance measures over general bankruptcy risk scores. The results show that the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) used to build a bankruptcy risk scored based on discriminant analysis indices is effective for determining the influence of corporate performance over risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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