MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Credit Constraints and the Productivity of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Evidence from Canada

2020· article· en· W3086827611 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Andrew Lim, J.Q. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityCash flowAsset (computer security)BusinessDebtInvestment (military)Small and medium-sized enterprisesConstraint (computer-aided design)Monetary economicsEstimationFinanceEconomicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are regulators of the business environment. In Canada, SMEs represent about 50 percent of businesses and are responsible for over 60 percent of the country’s employment. The role of SMEs in the development of a country can’t be ignored, as they are vital indicators of economic development. The size and cash flow of a company's assets are reliable indicators of credit constraints (CC), which results in a CC agent for models that use an asset-to-liability ratio. We focus on the actual impact of a previously estimated score in cases where corporate credit is limited. Investment and employment decisions are based on productivity shocks (PS) and the possibility of CC. Using variables, our model indicates the importance of measured credit restrictions being distinguished, such as cash flows that indicate productivity levels and the probability of CC. The data samples are from 2009 to 2014, although the measurement of CC is only available from 2011. Therefore, we use the model of credit constraint estimation to anticipate the likelihood of CC in the months before and after 2011. The findings reflect that the firm’s size, debt to assets ratio, and cash flow are significant factors in the evaluation of the CC, whereas long-term debt (LTD) to asset ratio wasn’t found to be significant. The study also evaluates and estimates firm-level productivity.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Economics and Empirical ResearchSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207