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
ABSTRACT Empirical researchers and practitioners frequently use the bankruptcy prediction models developed by Altman (1968) and Ohlson (1980). This poses a potential problem for practitioners in Canada and researchers working with Canadian data because the Altman and Ohlson models were developed using U.S. data. We compare Canadian bankruptcy prediction models developed by Springate (1978), Altman and Levallee (1980), and Legault and Véronneau (1986) against the Altman and Ohlson models using recent data to determine the robustness of all models over time and the applicability of the Altman and Ohlson models to the Canadian environment. Our results indicate that the models developed by Springate (1978) and Legault and Véronneau (1986) yield similar results to the Ohlson (1980) model while being simpler and requiring less data. The Altman (1968) and Altman and Levallee (1980) models generally have lower performance than the other models. All models have stronger performance with the original coefficients than with re‐estimated coefficients. Our results regarding the Altman and Ohlson models are consistent with Begley, Ming, and Watts (1996), who found that the original version of the Ohlson model is superior to the Altman model and is robust over time. Les chercheurs empiriques et les praticiens ont souvent recours aux modèles de prédiction des faillites élaborés par Altman (1968) et Ohlson (1980). Or, le fait que ces auteurs aient utilisé des données des États‐Unis dans l'élaboration de leurs modèles soulève un problème particulier pour les praticiens canadiens et les chercheurs qui traitent des données canadiennes. Les auteurs comparent les modèles canadiens de prédiction des faillites mis au point par Springate (1978), Altman et Levallée (1980) et Legault et Véronneau (1986) aux modèles proposés par Altman et Ohlson, en se servant de données récentes pour évaluer la robustesse de tous ces modèles dans le temps et l'applicabilité des modèles d'Altman et Ohlson au contexte canadien. L'analyse révèle que les modèles de Springate (1978) et de Legault et Véronneau (1986) produisent des résultats similaires à ceux du modèle d'Ohlson (1980), bien qu'ils soient plus simples et exigent moins de données. De façon générale, les modèles d'Altman (1968) et d'Altman et Levallee (1980) sont moins performants que les autres modèles. Tous les modèles sont plus efficaces lorsqu'ils font usage des coefficients initiaux que lorsqu'ils sont appliqués à de nouvelles estimations des coefficients. Les résultats obtenus en ce qui a trait aux modèles d'Altman et d'Ohlson corroborent ceux de Begley, Ming et Watts (1996) qui constatent que la version initiale du modèle d'Ohlson est supérieure au modèle d'Altman et résiste au passage du temps.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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