MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039447702 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2020.6.018

The role of internal factors in determining the firm value in Indonesia

2020· article· en· W3039447702 on OpenAlex
Etty Puji Lestari, Diah Astuti, Moh. Abdul Basir

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)BusinessMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are pros and cons to the internal factors of the firm value. Some internal factors that play a role in firm value are company size, leverage, and profitability. The purpose of this study is to analyze the internal factors that influence the firm value. The research sample is all companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2012-2017. The dependent variable in this study is the firm value, while the independent variables are firm size, leverage, and profitability. The method used is the data panel. The results show that leverage had a negative and significant effect on firm value. In contrast, profitability and company size had a positive but insignificant effect on firm value. The results are in line with the allegation that the larger the company's size, the higher the investor's confidence in the company's ability to provide a return on investment. This evidence is in line with the allegations in the hypothesis that company size has a positive effect on its value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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