MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026174851 · doi:10.1111/jfir.12217

U.S. POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND LOAN PRICING

2020· article· en· W3026174851 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashrafee T Hossain, Lawrence Kryzanowski, Bing Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Financial Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityQueen's UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of NewfoundlandConcordia University
KeywordsLanguage changeLoanPoliticsPolitical corruptionState (computer science)Monetary economicsBusinessEconomicsFinancial systemFinancePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using U.S. Department of Justice data on state‐level political corruption, we find that banks charge higher loan spreads (all‐in‐drawn spreads) to firms in states with higher corruption and that these effects are more pronounced for firms facing financial constraints but less pronounced for firms experiencing greater external monitoring. These results are robust to additional controls, alternative corruption measures, a measure of the lack of oversight of lobbyist activities, and the use of instrumental variables. Overall, our findings are consistent with the harmful corruption environment hypothesis, which states that banks charge higher loan spreads to firms in states with greater political corruption environments as these firms are susceptible to making suboptimal financial decisions to fend off rent‐seeking behavior.

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)0.008
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207