MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Institutional Investment in Listed Private Equity

2011· article· en· W3125351106 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Financial Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate equity fundPrivate equityPrivate equity firmInstitutional investorBusinessFinanceClub dealEquity (law)Private investment in public equityMarket liquidityAlternative investmentCash flowPrivate equity secondary marketInvestment managementInvestment (military)Corporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines institutional investors’ propensity to invest in a relatively unknown asset class of listed private equity. Based on data provided by LPEQ, Preqin and Scorpio Partnership covering 171 institutional investors in Europe in 2008–2010, we find allocations are primarily a function of size, type, location, decision‐making authority and liquidity preferences. Investment in listed private equity is more commonly made by institutions that are smaller, private (not public) pension institutions, institutions that have a preference for liquidity, quick access, and administrative and cash flow management simplicity, and institutions that are based in the UK, Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands. As well, institutions are less likely to invest in listed private equity when investment decision‐making is empowered to an alternative asset class team .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.171 · 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