Bankruptcy Prediction with the Use of Data Envelopment Analysis: An Empirical Study of Slovak Businesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper deals with methods of predicting bankruptcy of a business with the aim of choosing a prediction method which will have exact results. Existing bankruptcy prediction models are a suitable tool for predicting the financial difficulties of businesses. However, such tools are based on strictly defined financial indicators. Therefore, the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method has been applied, as it allows for the free choice of financial indicators. The research sample consisted of 343 businesses active in the heating industry in Slovakia. Analysed businesses have a significant relatively stable position in the given industry. The research was based on several studies which also used the DEA method to predict future financial difficulties and bankruptcies of studied businesses. The estimation accuracy of the Additive DEA model (ADD model) was compared with the Logit model to determine the reliability of the DEA method. Also, an optimal cut-off point for the ADD model and Logit model was determined. The main conclusion is that the DEA method is a suitable alternative for predicting the failure of the analysed sample of businesses. In contrast to the Logit model, its results are independent of any assumptions. The paper identified the key indicators of the future success of businesses in the analysed sample. These results can help businesses to improve their financial health and competitiveness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".